US troops cause havoc in Germany

Press TV

On Monday, stray bullets from a US Army firing range hit civilian buildings in the southern German town of Grafenwoehr during a shooting practice, AFP reported.

The machine-gun shots hit three buildings inside the training ground, a vocational school, a house, and a garage some five kilometers (3.1 miles) from the training range. A sports center and two guards' offices were also hit by the shootings.

Both the US military and German police say they are investigating why the 12.7-millimeter rounds, fired from a four-wheel-drive vehicle, hit compounds outside the Grafenwoehr US Army training ground, located about 200 kilometers (124 miles) north of Munich.

Grafenwoehr hosts the greatest US Army training garrison in Europe, which lies five kilometers from the vocational school.

The spokeswoman of the garrison, Susanne Bartsch, said that soldiers "were shooting in the wrong direction" during a convoy protection exercise on Friday afternoon.

No casualties have reportedly been caused as the buildings hit by the shots were empty of residents at the time of the incident.

Ten years ago, a shell struck a German elementary school near the training areas, where troops were taking military drills before heading to Afghanistan.

According to the latest statistics, around 40,000 American forces are stationed in different garrisons across Germany, which has instigated tensions and heightened sensitivities among the local population as well as some government officials. 

War on Terror Promises Era of Persistent Conflict

Miller-McCune
Jeff Shear


This is the last of a three-part look at the evolution of the American military.

The phrase "persistent conflict" has
become a subject of speculation in both
military and civilian circles, as America's
commitment to Iraq winds down, Afghanistan
promises to draw down troops
in July, and a new combat
mission in Libya is under way.
(MC2 Edwin L. Wriston/DefenseImagery.mil)

Struggling to wind down the longest war in American history, retiring Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey Jr. lobbed a bomb. He described a future rife with “persistent conflict.” The phrase, which was long studied and carefully forged over several years by the Pentagon, has become a subject of speculation in both military and civilian circles, as America’s commitment to Iraq winds down, Afghanistan promises to draw down troops in July, and a new combat mission in Libya is under way, roiling the already tumultuous Middle East.

(Having fulfilled his three-year commitment, Casey stepped down on April 10, 2011, and was replaced by General Martin E. Dempsey, the commanding general at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.)

The term represents a link in a chain of events that began in 1973 with the creation of an all-volunteer military. Less than 20 years later, those volunteers had evolved into a well-oiled professional fighting machine, able to project power anywhere around the globe.

The bloodbath in the Balkans gave rise to a second link, when the U.S. contributed troops and aircraft to separate the warring factions in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Large numbers of private contractors were hired to support the military. Those numbers multiplied in Iraq and Afghanistan, as more and more of the military’s capabilities were privatized. Without professionals and privatization, “persistent conflict” would be unlikely.

In hindsight, the nation may have been preparing for a future of “persistent conflict” since Bosnia in 1995. A one-year commitment in the Balkans ended nine years later in 2004, overlapping two other wars.

Casey began talking publicly about “persistent conflict” in an August 2007 speech before the National Press Club in Washington. His new job had begun that April as a presidential campaign ramped up and the situation in Iraq wound down.

During the first month at his desk, Casey saw four bombings in Baghdad kill 198 people. That same April, a suicide bomber entered the Iraqi Parliament building, killing one representative and wounding 22. The attack had taken place “inside the wire,” in the fortress-like Green Zone that held the American embassy, the Iraqi government and all of the major news bureaus.

Before the end of his first month on the job, Casey’s boss, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, delivered more bad news. America’s shell-shocked troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have their 12-month tours stretched out to 16 months. It was not long before Casey began calling the relentless rotation of troops in and out of combat zones the “new normal.”

While Casey has never been an alarmist or played on the nation’s fears, he foresees a persistent campaign against violent extremist groups like al-Qaeda. As he sees it, the Army must be prepared to deal with a full “spectrum” of potential conflicts. For the future not only holds the danger of terrorism and the rise of failed states, but also struggles to gain control of diminishing resources — energy, food, water — made more acute by a new status quo.

The nuclear dangers of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea loom large, but natural resources and mineral wealth have long been a spigot of state power. In the months leading up to World War II, the U.S. and several other nations used an oil embargo to pressure Japan into diplomatic concessions. They received no concessions and Japan ultimately responded with an attack on Pearl Harbor.

In 2006 and 2009, Russia cut off gas supplies in a trade dispute with Ukraine. That threatened one-quarter of the natural gas consumed by fuel hungry Europe, large parts of which fall under the protective arm of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Still, there are “people in the Pentagon who say that ‘persistent conflict’ does not necessarily mean ‘persistent combat,’” says Nathan Freier, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It is unlikely that the U.S. will be participating in large-scale serial wars.”

Freier had been part of the Pentagon team that developed the concept of persistent conflict. “There are people who are going to push back against U.S. influence around the world for a variety of motivations,” he says. “Conflict is not necessarily violent. We were thinking along the lines of ‘persistent conflict and resistance,’ a kind of push-back — economic, political and advisory responses other than combat.”

Whatever “persistent conflict” comes to mean, the Army is building what it calls a more modular force, one that allows specialized units to mix and match capabilities. The Army that will emerge from Iraq or Afghanistan — whether it finally leaves or stays behind in the name of stability — will have to be flexible enough to face an unpredictable future.

Professor Richard H. Kohn studies the connections between the military and American society at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “The term [persistent conflict] serves to explain why General Casey is moving toward an expeditionary army,” meaning a force that can be readily inserted into a conflict, Kohn says. A recent release from the U.S. Army War College’s electronic newsletter described the move to a modular Army as momentous: “[The Army's] largest transformation since World War II.” That means the great land army will no longer rely on massive divisions to enter combat, but rely on smaller Lego-styled brigades that can be shaped to the circumstances. Speaking at the annual war college strategy conference in 2010, (see video here) retired Army Lt. Col. Nathan Frier said, “Once, the gold standard of risk assessment for DOD was the ability to conduct two major war simultaneously, it is now the ability to simultaneously conduct dissimilar missions of widely varying scope and intensity.”

In early April 2011, U.S. forces were conducting dissimilar missions: The Navy was launching missiles and aircraft against Libya, while special forces units ran covert operations on the ground; the Army was shipping out and closing down bases in Iraq, while preparing to leave behind 150 uniformed personnel to work with security contractors to train Iraqi police and military; troops in Afghanistan were gearing up for a spring offensive against the Taliban (in a combat operation that had initially been aimed at al-Qaeda); elsewhere the Navy was off the coast of Japan performing humanitarian services while, at the same time, watching over its bases there.

The War College’s strategic conference also broached the problem of “indecisive wars,” which might be described as the residual effect of persistent conflict. Such wars would not be aimed at winning, but at containing or controlling a threat. While the Army has fought indecisive wars in the past, it was seldom by plan. If Kohn is correct, the new Army must be prepared to face up to this new reality: engaging in warfare that may not have a final outcome; war in which there will be no walk-off victory.
Another clear message emerging after 15 years of persistent conflict, beginning in Bosnia, is that troops wear out. Humans cannot simply be refitted and sent back into battle. The Army Times reports that the Department of Veterans Affairs has found that 44 percent of Iraq-Afghanistan war vets seeking treatment suffer war-related mental problems.

These numbers are only a slice of the real problem. Though the VA says it has treated a total of 178,483 individual veterans from 2002 to 2008 with war-related mental problems, or 24 percent of the 1.7 million men and women who have been in combat zones, a separate study by the RAND Corporation found that many soldiers don’t seek help for fear of repercussions. So the actual percentage of mental problems could be far higher.

Dr. Andrew Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and the author of Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War, is alarmed. “There is emerging evidence that shows that we’ve got a new generation of veterans that is going to have all kinds of problems. And that’s going to cost a lot of money. I believe it’s true that 40 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have left the service have already filed for some kind of disability with the Veterans Administration, and that’s a huge number. And it’s a much large percentage than it was in previous wars.”

And if the soldiers are wearing out, so is their weaponry. None of the military’s gear was designed for 10 years of constant use. Workhorse systems, like the venerable C-130 aircraft used in transport and modified to go into battle as gunships, are falling apart. Air Force Lt. Col. Brenda Cartier commanded a squadron of these aircraft and says “the wing-boxes [have worn out] and need to be replaced.” Wing-boxes keep the wings attached to the fuselage.

In the end, the meaning of “persistent conflict” may ultimately be defined by the federal budget. The January/February issue of the journal Foreign Affairs had this: “The United States faces a watershed moment: It must decide whether to increase its already massive debt in order to continue being the world’s sheriff, or restrain its military missions and focus on economic recovery. …”

The authors of the article, Matthew Leatherman, a research associate for Washington’s Stimson Center, and Gordon Adams, a professor at American University and the former associate director for national security and international affairs at the Office of Management and Budget, see Pentagon spending in retreat.

“Secretary Gates is engaged in budgetary trench warfare,” Adams says. “He’s basically retreating one trench at a time, conceding that we’re at a turning point.”

Adams, who spent five years analyzing defense dollars in the Clinton administration, dismisses the concept of persistent conflict as a “fantasy.” He argues that the Defense Department has drawn the wrong lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is that persistent conflict cannot mean persistent combat. It is both physically and fiscally impossible.

“We’re not going to fight insurgencies forever,” Adams says. “Casey has built a myth around Iraq and Afghanistan, saying that there will be an endless series of such wars that require a very large army.” Adams believes that the real lesson is more ironic: that when you invade a country, even a failed state, “you create your own insurgency.” His comments suggest that “persistent conflict” may become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Pentagon’s Trillion Dollar Spending Spree Exceeds the General Funds of All 50 U.S. States Combined

Redacted News

Americans can begin to hope that the current recession, coupled with the politics of debt reduction in Washington, may yet result in cuts in that runaway Pentagon budget, The Nation magazine says in its April 11th issue.

“War-weary Americans have turned decisively against the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, according to polls, voters support cuts in military spending,” Contributing Editor Robert Dreyfuss writes.

“After 13 consecutive years of growth, between 1998 and 2011, spending on the military has reached an all-time high,” and for 2012 the Pentagon’s Robert Gates “is asking Congress to authorize yet another increase, seeking $553 billion, plus an additional $118 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, for a total of $671 billion,” Dreyfuss writes. Throw in all war spending, homeland defense ($44 billion), Veterans Affairs ($122 billion), interest on military debt ($48 billion) and the war machine is costing the public in excess of $1 trillion a year.

“It’s so much money,” Dreyfuss writes, President Obama’s own National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform(NCFRR) pointed out the $80 billion the U.S. spends on military R&D alone “surpassed China’s entire military budget by more than $10 billion.” Overall, Dreyfuss writes, the U.S. spends as much on military “as the rest of the world combined.”
What’s more, the Pentagon’s trillion dollar spending spree exceeds the general funds of all 50 U.S. states combined, which, says the National Association of State Budget Officers, will come to about $636 billion in 2011. Translation: Pentagon spending for war is greater than all public outlays for all purposes by all states. And while hard-pressed states wallow in debt and lay off teachers and police, “defense” contractors enjoy record or near-record profits.

Editor Dreyfuss noted that “a series of high-powered reports” last year called for “big cuts in military spending, with each projecting reductions of 15-20 percent of the Pentagon budget.” These were:

    ▪    Sustainable Defense Task Force of Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul, seeking to chop $960 billion between 2011 and 2020.

    ▪    The libertarian Cato Institute published “Budgetary Savings From Military Restraint” that outlined $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years, including a one-third cut in troop strength

    ▪    The Bipartisan Policy Center issued “Restoring America’s Future” that proposed a five-year freeze in Pentagon spending at current levels plus a cap on future growth that would save $1.1 trillion over a decade.

    ▪    “Most startling,” Dreyfuss writes, was President Obama’s own NCFRR came up with nearly $1 trillion in cuts.

“Broadly speaking, public opinion no longer favors military spending,” Dreyfuss writes. “Support for the war in Afghanistan, which absorbs $10 billion a month, has dropped off a cliff, with two-thirds of Americans saying the war is no longer worth fighting.”

“Other polling,” he continues, “shows that when asked to choose between cuts in Pentagon spending and undermining the social safety net, the public chooses cutting the Pentagon.”

A March poll, Dreyfuss notes, revealed that 51 percent favor reductions in military spending versus just 28 percent who would cut Medicare and Medicaid and 18 percent who’d cut Social Security.

If the public truly seeks to slash the Pentagon budget, the fight will be long and hard and it will have to start right away. Dreyfuss quotes Lawrence Korb, a military analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, who says few if any cuts will come before the 2015 budget cycle. “If you start now, you can take out $100 billion a year by 2015. That’s realistic,” Korb is quoted as saying.

Personally, I prefer my own Ross Plan to all of the cuts suggested above. The Ross Plan would require the Peace Corps and the Pentagon to switch budgets and personnel numbers. Restricted to $400 million a year and 8,600 troops the Pentagon couldn’t possibly raise all the hell it does. And with a $1 trillion budget and three million workers, the Peace Corps, (which candidate Obama promised to double from 7,800 to 16,000 by 2011 but, of course, never has) might just work wonders.

About the Writer: Sherwood Ross is a public relations consultant for good causes who also runs the Anti-War News Service. Contact him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com

Thousands Stand Up to Noise and Pollution Caused by U.S. Airbases - In Okinawa

CNN

Tokyo, Japan (CNN) -- An ongoing feud with the United States over the future of an American military base in Okinawa may end up costing Japan's prime minister his job, a weekend poll shows.

Two out of three Japanese say they disapprove of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, according to a Nikkei newspaper poll. It shows that 68 percent of voters disapprove of the prime minister's performance and 59 percent say he should resign if he can't resolve the fight over the future of the Futenma Air Base in Okinawa.

The poll comes on the heels of a massive rally in Okinawa, where nearly 100,000 residents gathered Sunday to demand the base move off the island.

In 2006, the United States and Japan agreed to move the base from a city center to a rural part of Okinawa.

But last year, as then-candidate Hatoyama campaigned for the country's top job, he promised to move the base off of Okinawa altogether. The issue is an emotional one for Okinawans who currently give up 10 percent to 20 percent of the island to the U.S. military.

Okinawans say the U.S. military has been responsible for a number of blights in Okinawa, from serious crimes like rape and drunken driving, to environmental and noise pollution.

The residents, energized by an anti-U.S. campaign pledge in the last election, voted overwhelmingly for Hatoyama. But as prime minister, Hatoyama has found the promise difficult to keep, prompting residents to demand that he fulfill that pledge.

The U.S., Japan's closest ally, says Japan should live up to the 2006 agreement. Hatoyama has pushed back, saying his government will look at other options. The two governments have established a working group to find an agreeable solution, but in the meantime, it has frayed the normally lockstep relationship between the allies.

In Japan, analysts say the lack of a quick solution to the base issue is dragging down Hatoyama's poll numbers and entire agenda.

"When a politician picks up a populist issue, he has to put it down in a populist manner, to please all the Japanese people," said Keith Henry, principal officer at Asia Strategy in Tokyo.

"Mr. Hatoyama has failed completely as a Japanese politician, as a leader of this country to take control of that issue," Henry said. "What should have been a regional issue within Okinawa has become a national referendum on Hatoyama himself, and unfortunately, on the state of U.S.-Japan relations."

Turning up the heat even more, Okinawans are taking their protest this week to the United States. The Japan-U.S. Citizens for Okinawa Network and the Network for Okinawa have paid for a full page ad to run in The Washington Post this week. The ad reads: "Would you want 30 military bases in your backyard?" and asks: "Tell the Obama Administration: We don't need this base in Okinawa."

90,000 Protest U.S. Base on Okinawa

New York Times

Tucson could learn from Okinawans:

TOKYO — More than 90,000 Okinawans rallied Sunday to oppose the relocation of an American air base on their island, adding to the pressure on Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama to resolve an issue that has divided Tokyo and Washington.

The Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, in the city of Ginowan, would be moved elsewhere on Okinawa under a 2006 deal.

The demonstrators, in one of the largest protests on Okinawa in years, demanded that Mr. Hatoyama scrap a 2006 agreement with the United States to move the Futenma Marine Corps Air Station to a different site on the island. Many of the protesters wore yellow to signal they were giving Mr. Hatoyama a warning for appearing to waver on election promises to move the busy base off Okinawa altogether.

Since his party’s landmark election victory last summer, Mr. Hatoyama has promised to come up with an alternative plan that would reduce the heavy American presence on the southern Japanese island, home to nearly half of the 50,000 United States military personnel in Japan. He has given himself until the end of May to put together such a plan that would also be acceptable to Washington.

So far, his efforts to find a new location for the base have not appeased Washington; it initially demanded that Tokyo adhere to the original 2006 deal but has recently signaled greater flexibility. The 2006 deal calls for moving the base from its current location, in the center of the city of Ginowan, to Camp Schwab, an existing Marine base in less-populated northern Okinawa.

The perception that Mr. Hatoyama has mishandled the relationship with the United States, Japan’s longtime protector, has contributed to his falling approval ratings, which have dropped below 30 percent. Opposition leaders and media commentators have begun calling on him to resign if he fails to find a compromise by the end of May.

While Mr. Hatoyama has remained tight-lipped about what his plan may look like, officials from his government have made repeated visits to Okinawa to sound out local leaders. Okinawan politicians and the local news media have described the emerging plan as a modified version of the 2006 agreement.

They said the government was considering building a smaller airbase at Camp Schwab than under the 2006 agreement and moving at least part of Futenma’s functions — most likely some of its training operations, and perhaps some of its helicopters — to Tokunoshima, a smaller island about 120 miles north of Okinawa. Japanese news media have interpreted this proposal as a token gesture to appease Okinawans by moving at least some of the Marines off the island.

Okinawan leaders and local media reports have also said the government is considering constructing a new air base on an artificial island to be built off the Okinawan city of Uruma. Japanese media reports have said the island could take decades to build and would serve as a longer-term home for the Marines.

However, on Sunday, local leaders told the demonstrators that they rejected any plan that kept the air base on Okinawa. Toshio Shimabukuro, the mayor of Uruma, said he opposed the construction of the island, which he said would turn his city in “a major military site,” according to Japan’s Kyodo News.

The governor of Okinawa, Hirokazu Nakaima, who dropped his earlier support for the 2006 plan to join a rising movement against the base, called on the rest of Japan to share more of the burden of the American military presence. “This is not a problem that concerns only Okinawans,” he said, according to Kyodo.