Thomas E. Ricks's Blog, page 101

Rebecca's War Dog of the Week: Cane assists with Operation Nightmare

By Rebecca Frankel

Best Defense Chief Canine Correspondent 

Postcard from Nowzad: 

Meet Cane a black Labrador retriever and (I'm going to
assume) an IDD with the Marines. In this photo, his handler, Lance Cpl.
Joseph Graves with Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, offers his canine
partner a refreshing drink of water in Nowzad, Afghanistan, on June 6. This
team is part of Operation Nightmare, a clearing operation led by Afghan
National Security Forces and supported by the Marines of 2/8. 

Rebecca Frankel is special projects editor at FP. 

Enable emerging leaders to find a way forward in dealing with sexual assault

By LT Ben Kohlmann,
USN; Capt Lindsay Rodman, USMC; Maj Mark Jacobsen, USAF; and LCDR Charlotte
Pittman, USCG

Best Defense guest
column gang

Like
most problems, the military and its civilian leadership are tackling the recent
incidents of sexual assault with a top-down, hierarchical way forward. Such
measures, on their own, may not move the needle over the long term. What is
needed are grassroots solutions, developed at the lowest possible levels,
empowering the people with the most at stake to direct cultural change from the
bottom up. Culture change is about the masses; so we -- a group of junior
officers who care deeply about this issue -- want to take this question
directly to them.

Two
years ago, one of us was a member of a Marine Corps Fighter Squadron with a
problem. Alcohol-related incidents were rampant -- a car wreck leading to
severely injured maintainers, claims of domestic violence, officers arrested
for drunk driving, the gamut. After each incident, that command took proactive
steps to hold servicemembers accountable and prevent such incidents from
occurring again. Safety stand downs and squadron-wide discussions were the
preferred method. Despite their concerted efforts, the problems continued.

One
spring afternoon, another member of the squadron was arrested on another
alcohol-related charge. The commanding officer, at his wits end and not knowing
what further steps he should take, called all 600 of his subordinates into the
base theater at 0700 the next Saturday. This, for a Marine Corps aviation
squadron, was highly unusual. None dared be absent.

Instead
of getting lectured once again about the dangers of drunk driving, or hearing
from another highway patrolman, this commander looked into the audience and
told them he had done all he could. He said it was their responsibility now --
and directed them to split into 10-15 person groups, randomly composed of
officers, NCOs, and junior enlisted. They had two hours to come up with
solutions. He would entertain any idea, however crazy.

And
boy did he get them. Create a squadron money pool to pay duty drivers. Contract
with off-base taxi services. Create a point system to award time off to those
volunteering to be sober drivers on late nights. There were some other ideas
not really of practical value over the long term, but that meeting was a
remarkable turning point. Soon after, that squadron had only intermittent
infractions during the remainder of the year and beyond.

It's
amazing what happens when subordinates are empowered to take control of their
own destinies. When they have the ability to offer recommendations, and have a
personal stake in the integration of policy, they often have pride in seeing an
issue resolved. And indeed, when they can implement those solutions that they
themselves conceived of, broader cultural change is a very probable outcome.

We
face a similar crisis throughout the military now when it comes to sexual
assault. Those of us putting together the Defense Entrepreneurs Forum want to
be part of the solution, by hosting a portal where we think grassroots
solutions to this issue can be discussed among those who it affects most.

The
typical military responses to such crises are top down, draconian mandates from
above that inadvertently implicate all, when very few are the problem. Even
worse is when Congress passes sweeping legislation, often based on a lack of
understanding of the military system, failing to properly match an identified
problem with an appropriate solution. We believe that longer lasting solutions
are most likely to emerge from those of us who sail, fly, fight, and live with
brothers and sisters in arms.

We're
not here to haggle over numbers, or to dispute what different studies are
saying. If
190 soldiers are killed or injured by IEDs, we find ways to fix the problem. We
would fix it even if the number were only 50. We lose one aviator and immense
resources are mobilized to ensure that problem never occurs again. This
shouldn't be much different.

We
want to know from the men and women on the ground how they think we can change
a military culture that the public perceives as accepting of sexual assault. We
want to know what they have seen in their units, and how devolving
responsibility and solutions to the lowest possible level could yield outsized
results. No grandstanding, no political axe to grind. Just a way forward,
driven from the grassroots .

We
firmly believe that the high profile cases recently highlighted are far from
the accepted norm, yet we also know that the horrors of sexual assault occur
for too many men and women in our services. We want to see that end.

We
are not officially empowered to do anything about this, and are doing this
solely in our individual capacities -- without the sanction of any of our
military leadership. We are simply concerned junior officers wanting to come up
with solutions that have a real chance of making a difference, beyond the
training, resources, and processes being disseminated from above. We believe in
the honor of our services, and the nobility of our mission. We want to ensure
that we are doing our part to maintain the integrity of the military, so that
every servicemember can devote him or herself to the mission -- defending our
country and focusing our energies on taking the fight to those who would do us
harm -- without concern about sexual assault.

We
encourage you to join us at www.def2013.com/ideasforum and let us know what
you think.

LT Ben Kohlmann is a naval
aviator. Capt Lindsay Rodman is a Marine Corps JAG. Maj Mark Jacobsen is a USAF
C-17 pilot. LCDR Charlotte Pittman is a USCG helicopter pilot. Consider this to
be the standard disclaimer.

Quote of the day no. 2: Rosa Brooks summarizes world history

"For most of human history,... we've had a giant mess." We
might have escaped that for the last couple of centuries, with clear
delineations between states, corporations, and such. But that may be passing
away.

What is a weapon? What is a soldier? And what if drones are better killers than us?

Rosa Brooks, a former Pentagon official who is now a
Georgetown law professor (and a fellow FP
writer), said the lines of warfare and much else are much murkier than they
were a few decades ago.

"Is a line of code a weapon?" she asked at the CNAS conference. "Well, it can kill
people. It can do real damage." (Tom: Glock vs. GLOC.) 

She said it is crucial to be conscious of the legal
framework you impose on a situation, because that can drive decisions. If you
think a terrorist act is a criminal act, you will respond to it one way. If you
decide it was an act of war, you will act in another way. Being unclear about
this can lead to a haziness in strategy. "Because we can lawfully do almost
anything, we do almost everything." And a danger is that the next step is that
other nations will imitate that approach.

She also made the point that drones might be better (and
more ethical) about killing people than people are. "We have robocars, and it
turns out they not only can drive a car as well as a human, they can do it
better, because we have limited attention spans." What, she asked, if drones
are less prone to make mistakes?

What if the government can figure out if you are having an extramarital affair?

Irv Lachow, the CNAS cyberfellow, said it is plausible that
metadata could be used to figure out who is probably having extramarital
affairs. So, he said, what if the government wants to develop a list of people
with security clearances who are engaging in affairs and so more susceptible to
blackmail, emotional stress, or financial trouble?

His point is that we need to think this through, and focus
not on what is legal, but on what is ethical and wise. I agree.

Quote of the day no. 1: When it is distribution and when it is proliferation

Ben Fitzgerald of Noetic: "It's 'distribution' if we're
doing it. It's 'proliferation' if other people do it."

Northrop Grumman CEO: We are risking our technological advantage in the world

Wes Bush, the president and CEO of Northrop Grumman, said at
the CNAS conference that, in his view, the United States is risking its
technological advantage over the rest of the world. "Our national strategy rests
on technological superiority," he said. And at the current rate of investment,
he said, "that's not sustainable."

He added that he thinks Americans don't understand the rate
at which the rest of the world is advancing technologically. The pace, he said,
is "absolutely extraordinary."

For his company, he said, the key question is human capacity
-- keeping and attracting new talent.

By the way, this is the
link that works to watch the conference on-line.

Edelman: Cut the Joint Staff

In a discussion of how to fix the defense budget, Eric Edelman,
a former undersecretary of defense for policy, said that we should
"dramatically cut the Joint Staff." He didn't say by how much.

I am not sure how this is relevant, but I noticed that
Edelman wears a pinky ring and a gold bracelet. Lots of bling for a policy
wonk.

Is there a cyber Blackwater?

Some cyber companies
are on "thin ice" legally, said Nate Fick, now CEO of Endgame
Inc., speaking this
morning at the CNAS conference. (You can tune into the meeting on your computer
by going to the CNAS website.)

Fick, a former CEO of CNAS,  said this is a murky world we need to know
more about, with companies emerging that are providing capabilities that run
way ahead of policy and rules.

One of the big issues looming out there is the issue of the
"hack back." That is, does someone under cyberattack -- whether an individual,
a company, or a part of the government -- have the right to respond in kind? Or
to hire someone to do that?

I think this parallels the issue in government of having
pre-existing authorization to respond to a cyber intrusion. I am told that the
Pentagon cyberwarriors have been asking for such authorizations, but that the
White House has been resisting giving such blanket pre-approvals. This is an
interesting issue that could get into questions of civilian control of the
military. In some ways it is reminiscent of the creation of doctrine for the
command and control of nuclear weapons. But it also gets us deep into issues of
privacy and surveillance -- as we are seeing now with the NSA. 

The Best Defense plan for Wednesday

Today is the CNAS
annual conference,
in which lots of ideas get tossed around. Today may be
revealed the future of the defense budget, of American strategy, of American
relations with Asia, and more.

So instead of the
usual thumbsuckers, I plan today to file some reports on what gets said.