Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon announced Tuesday that most of its civilian workforce will be required to take 11 unpaid leave days this year as part of an effort to save money in the face of mandatory budget cuts.

Most workers will be required to take one unpaid day a week between July 8 and Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year.

The furloughs will save the department an estimated $1.8 billion and affect more than 600,000 civilian Defense Department workers.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the decision was made only after exhausting all other options to save money in the face of the congressionally mandated cuts, called sequestration.

“We did everything we could not to get to this,” Hagel told civilian workers in a townhall-style meeting in Alexandria, Va. “But that’s it. That’s where we are.”

The Pentagon has already cut back on training and deployments, which are doing serious harm to military readiness, Hagel said in a memorandum announcing the furloughs.

The Air Force has or will soon stop flying about one-third of its combat squadrons in the active forces. The Navy and Marine Corps are cutting back on training and deployments.

The Pentagon said the 11 days of unpaid leave represent a decrease in initial plans. Planners had initially considered requiring 22 days of unpaid leave.

Some workers deemed essential will not be subject to the unpaid leave. For example, civilian workers deployed in a combat zone and shipyard workers, because they provide maintenance for nuclear-powered ships, will be exempt.

Hagel said the department might be able to reduce the 11 days if additional savings are found, but said, “I can’t promise that.”

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — An army marches on its stomach, according to an old military adage.

Today’s military is tethered to a gas pump.

The amount of fuel used per individual soldier has skyrocketed in recent years because of an increased use of aircraft and armored vehicles. In Afghanistan, that dependency has meant long and costly supply lines that are vulnerable to attack and limit the reach of American forces.

The Pentagon increasingly sees this energy dependence as a military weakness and is trying to reduce it. The Navy is attempting to transition to biofuels for its ships and planes, and the Army and Marine Corps are exploring a host of initiatives, including using solar energy to power radio batteries.

“Every time some yahoo says ‘I’m going to close the Strait of Hormuz’ (the price of) oil spikes,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told USA TODAY in an interview.

In the past, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply travels.

“Right now, we buy our oil from foreign sources, and some of those sources don’t have our best interest at heart,” Mabus said.

SOLDIER SOLAR PACKS

The services are also developing portable combat outposts powered by fuel-efficient generators and solar panels. The Marine Corps is experimenting with small, flexible solar panels that can be attached to a Marine’s uniform.

“We’ve looked at everything,” said Col. Bob Charette, director of the Marine Corps’ expeditionary energy office. He said solar was the most mature of the industries.

Modern communications technology and precision weapons have increased the lethality of the Marine Corps and allowed commanders to disperse their units at ever greater distances, Charette said.

But it has came at a price: a dangerous dependence on fuel.

“Because of our thirst for liquid fuel, we’re not as light and agile as we once were, putting both our Marines and our expeditionary capabilities at risk,” Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, said bluntly when he launched a new energy strategy in 2011.

In 2001, a Marine infantry battalion, which typically has about 800 men, had 64 Humvees. Ten years later, that same battalion has 173 armored vehicles, which are each between 3,000 and 5,000 pounds heavier than Humvees, according to a Marine Corps study.

The increased reliance on technology has also driven the demand for fuel. The Marine Corps had 8,000 laptops in Helmand province, the rugged region in southwest Afghanistan. At its peak, there were about 21,000 Marines in Helmand.

The intensifying thirst for fuel is not limited to the Marines. Since the Vietnam War, there has been a 175% increase in the demand for fuel per servicemember. Today, the Defense Department spends about $15 billion a year on fuel, and 60% of it comes from foreign sources, according to the Pentagon.

AFGHANISTAN’S ENERGY DRAIN

In Afghanistan, America’s massive war effort has been supplied by civilian convoys that have to move through two major supply lines — one through Central Asia in the north and the other through Pakistan in the east.

The power needs in Afghanistan, a landlocked country divided by steep mountains, are vast. Bagram, the sprawling American air base 30 miles from Kabul, uses about 50 megawatts of power, equivalent to a small American city. The military moves about 40 million gallons of fuel a month into Afghanistan to power generators and fuel aircraft and vehicles.

Much of the fuel moving into Afghanistan is Russian, says Sharon Burke, the assistant secretary of Defense for energy issues. On the wall of her Pentagon office is a large map of Afghanistan marked with supply lines, a reminder of the vulnerability of those chokepoints through which the supplies move.

“You put a supply line like that in a battlefield, and it’s going to be a limiting factor,” Burke says.

Once the fuel gets to Afghanistan, it has to roll across narrow dirt tracks or get flown into remote combat outposts. That can be deadly for the soldiers and Marines who take the fuel to those sites.

The Pentagon insists its initiatives to develop sustainable energy sources are motivated only by military necessity.

“It’s not about being environmental,” says John Conger, a Pentagon official who oversees the department’s installations and energy requirements. “The environmental stuff is a co-benefit.”

Lawmakers are mostly supportive of efforts to reduce the military’s dependence on fuel, but some critics in Congress say the Navy’s more ambitious plan to transition to biofuels has gone beyond those limited military objectives and is a thinly disguised environmental initiative.

“It’s the secretary of the Navy’s green agenda,” says Rep. Randy Forbes, a Virginia Republican. Forbes said the expenditures on biofuels has meant less money for shipbuilding and operation and maintenance of the Navy’s fleet. “He never stopped to say, ‘What’s the price tag?’ ” Forbes said of Mabus.

A centerpiece of Mabus’ initiative was the Great Green Fleet, a demonstration last year of the Navy’s ability to operate its ships and aircraft on biofuels.

During the demonstration, the Navy powered a carrier strike group, which consists of escort ships and aircraft, with 50% biofuels over a two-day exercise. The biofuels were made from a number of sources, including used cooking oil and algae.

The Green Fleet name is a reference to President Theodore Roosevelt’s Great White Fleet, a battle group that circled the globe in a demonstration of American seapower in the early part of last century.

Critics saw the Great Green Fleet as a demonstration of wasted taxpayer money. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., has pointed out that the Navy spent $12 million for biofuels at $27 a gallon for the demonstration.

The Navy acknowledges it has paid a premium for biofuels, but insists it is for experimental and test purposes only until the price becomes competitive with conventional fuel.

The Navy’s use of the Defense Production Act, designed to allow the military to support industries considered critical to national security, to invest in biofuel refineries has drawn criticism.

“The Navy wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in companies to create the market,” Forbes says.

Mabus sees the investment in biofuels as a hedge against the vagaries of the world oil markets.

U.S. military aircraft and ships patrolling the Persian Gulf or in the far reaches of the Pacific are forced to purchase much of their fuel from foreign suppliers, where they are hostage to price fluctuations and vulnerable to supply disruptions by rogue states.

Mabus said the Navy has faced skeptics before.

“The Navy has always been on the forefront of changing energy use,” Mabus says. He said there were skeptics when the Navy moved from wind to steam.

“Every single time, those naysayers were absolutely wrong,” Mabus says. “If price had been the only consideration, we’d still be using sails.”

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The Pentagon is accelerating the deployment of mortars and artillery to Afghanistan’s fledgling army in an effort to help compensate for the loss of American air power, which has proved devastating against the Taliban over the years.

The loss of American firepower after 2014 will be a key challenge for the Afghan force and highlights stark choices the White House is confronting as it shapes a follow-on force.

Afghan commanders are worried about its impact on operations.

“They certainly haven’t missed the fact that the finest air force on the planet is going home,” said Marine Gen. John Allen, who stepped down as top coalition commander in February and has retired.

But Allen said mortars, artillery and helicopter gunships will give Afghan forces quick access to their own firepower.

The Pentagon has said it will leave advisers and a counterterrorism force in Afghanistan after the combat mission ends. Air power would be available for remaining U.S. counterterrorism forces.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been critical of air attacks, accusing the coalition of mistakenly killing civilians. The White House has also been pushing to limit the size of the post-2014 force in Afghanistan, which restricts the amount of support Americans can supply, analysts say.

“There is enormous political pressure to get the numbers down,” said Fred Kagan, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who has advised top commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kagan said Karzai’s criticism might also have played a role in the American decision.

The Pentagon has said the decision is based on a strategy to transition security responsibility to Afghan forces as American and coalition forces withdraw.

Afghanistan’s own air force is not expected to be fully operational until 2016 at the earliest, the Pentagon said. Even when it is, it won’t have near the capabilities of the U.S. military, which leads the world in delivering powerful munitions accurately.

The Afghans’ main close air support plane, a turboprop Super Tucano, won’t be fielded until mid-2014, Air Force Maj. Gen. H.D. Polumbo, the top coalition air commander, told reporters recently.

In the meantime, Allen said the coalition is taking a number of steps that will give Afghanistan’s military a firepower advantage over the Taliban, including providing the additional mortars and arming their Mi-17 helicopters with rockets and gatling guns.

The additional firepower, which will be integrated into small units, will give Afghan troops the ability to respond quickly.

“The issue is having the right kind of combined arms capability,” Allen said, referring to the tactics of coordinating firepower with the movement of troops on the ground.

Air power helped collapse the Taliban regime after the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in response to the September 2001 attacks. Since then, American airstrikes have helped give Afghan and coalition forces a critical advantage over the Taliban.

Taliban militants are unable to mass forces without risking a devastating attack, forcing militants to fight in small groups and resort to roadside bombs and terrorist strikes on civilian targets.

“U.S firepower is very intimidating to the Taliban,” said David Barno, a retired three-star general who commanded coalition forces in Afghanistan and is now a senior adviser at the Center for a New American Security.

“Throughout this campaign, coalition air power has provided a critical asymmetric advantage,” Polumbo said.

Some analysts worry the removal of air power will take a key advantage away from Afghan forces.

“It’s incredibly important that Afghan security forces have access to this capability and that the Taliban know they have access to this capability,” Kagan said.

“The Afghan security forces are happy to fight,” he added. “They want to know they are going to win the fight at the end of the day. The nice thing about air support is it lets you end the discussion with the enemy.”

Allen said by integrating mortars and artillery into Afghanistan’s army, the coalition is providing a capability more in keeping with the Afghans style of fighting.

Afghan soldiers are particularly adept at mortars, a simple weapon system employed inside infantry units. Small mortars, such as the 60mm, can be packed on mules or carried in pieces by soldiers.

Already, as Afghan forces increasingly take the lead in operations, the coalition is backing off the frequency of air support.

Because of the concern over civilian or friendly casualties, regulations do not allow an Afghan unit to call for airstrikes unless a coalition air control team is accompanying the unit. Increasingly, Afghan forces are going out on their own and so lack the ability to call for coalition airstrikes.

Marine Maj. Gen. Charles “Mark” Gurganus, who recently returned to the United States after commanding coalition forces in southwest Afghanistan, said the coalition can currently provide the Afghans with air support if joint planning is conducted before an operation so a coalition team can be embedded with the Afghans.

“The trouble is if they go out and get into trouble we don’t know where they are,” Gurganus said. “We don’t fire any weapons systems because one of their commanders gets in a little bit of a fight and runs out and says, ‘I need fire support right now.’ “

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – Establishing solid evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used chemical weapons would require a combination of gathering soil samples, witness accounts, and evidence such as spent shells or other armaments, chemical weapons analysts say.

Tracking down that kind of evidence in a war zone is nearly impossible.

“The gold standard would be samples from a munition or fragment of a munition that tested positive for a known military chemical agent,” said Gregory Koblentz, a chemical weapons expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The best thing is to have an investigation team go to a site,” said Ralf Trapp, a chemical weapons consultant based in France.

U.N. inspectors have not been allowed into the country.

It is likely that the United States and allied intelligence officials are relying on soil samples or other physical evidence that was gathered at a site and then smuggled out of the country, possibly by opposition groups, analysts say.

That raises its own set of problems.

“The problem you face is how do you demonstrate that the sample you have came from the alleged incident, in other words, that it is authentic and it hasn’t been tampered with,” Trapp said.

The White House said Thursday it assesses “with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale” in Syria.

The Obama administration was careful to qualify its assessment, saying it is based “in part on physiological samples” and further corroboration is required. It is not clear whether the physiological sample was referring to soil samples or other physical evidence gathered in Syria.

“For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions,” the White House said in a letter to lawmakers.

The White House assessment follows similar statements by Great Britain, France and Israel.

Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, the head of research and analysis in Israeli military intelligence, referred to victims’ symptoms when he accused Syria of using chemical weapons.

“Shrunken pupils, foaming at the mouth and other signs indicate, in our view, that lethal chemical weapons were used,” he said.

The flawed intelligence that helped launch the Iraq War has made the Obama administration more wary of placing too much faith in intelligence. In letters to Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and John McCain, R-Ariz., the White House said “intelligence assessments alone are not sufficient.”

“The Iraq WMD fiasco is a cautionary tale here,” Koblentz said.

The White House assessment said the regime’s use of chemical weapons was on a “small scale,” making it even more challenging to gather proof, analysts say.

Large-scale attacks, such as the gassing of Kurds in Halabja, Iraq, in 1988, are hard to hide because they produce mass casualties, Trapp said. Evidence usually includes video, eyewitness accounts and other details.

Analysts are also puzzled over the motivation for limited use of chemical weapons, which are usually used on a large scale to shock and terrorize an opposing army or civilian population. Using chemicals on a small scale would risk further political alienation without achieving anything militarily, which “doesn’t make that much sense,” Koblentz said.

It’s possible the weapons fell into the hands of a rogue commander, but that raises question of whether some of the stockpiles remain under under Assad’s control, analysts said.

The Obama administration said it is pressing for a U.N. investigation

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is increasing its budget for cyber-warfare and expanding its offensive capabilities, including the ability to blind an enemy’s radar or shut down its command systems in the event of war, according to two defense officials.

In the 2014 defense budget released last week, the money allocated for cyber-operations rose to $4.7 billion, up from $3.9 billion. Much of that additional money is going into the development of offensive capabilities, usually referred to as computer network attacks, according to budget documents.

Officials say these are capabilities — including targeting military computer networks — that a commander might need in a conflict and would be used only in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

The expansion is a recognition that cyber-war will probably at least be part of any future conflict. In recent years, the Pentagon has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on building cyber-capabilities, an effort that has gained urgency as China, Russia, North Korea and other nations have been using cyberspace to attack adversaries or steal secrets.

“When you look at the strategic landscape from our perspective, it’s getting worse,” Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of Cyber Command, testified recently to Congress.

U.S. officials say they have a range of sophisticated cyber-attack capabilities should they be needed by commanders in a conflict. The skills are perishable and require constant honing, the defense officials said.

“From everything I’m told, we’re as good as anybody and probably better,” said Martin Libicki, a cyber-warfare analyst at Rand.

The Air Force, for example, has been developing systems designed for the “exfiltration of information while operating within adversary information systems,” according to budget documents. The Air Force declined to release details on the program, saying it was classified.

Next year, the Air Force plans to spend $14 million to research and develop offensive cyber-capabilities, budget documents show, while it plans to devote about $5.8 million to research for cyber-defense.

Cyber-attacks are often difficult to trace. A cyber-attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in 2010 damaged centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, but the United States and Israel are suspected.

Defense officials are careful to say they are not “militarizing” cyberspace and are only developing options available to commanders in the event of war.

When privacy concerns are raised, they are usually centered around the government’s defensive mission because it can involve extracting information sent over the Internet, Libicki said.

The Pentagon’s role in cyber-security is limited to defending the nation, the Pentagon said. Intelligence agencies and Homeland Security play a role in cyber-security operations, including efforts to counter the theft of trade secrets.

Alexander has said routine theft of intellectual property would generally not be considered an act of war. A major attack on infrastructure, however, could be considered such an act.

The Pentagon is nearing completion of a revised set of “rules of engagement” that will help field commanders determine how and when to use the new cyber-capabilities, the Pentagon said. The rules will be secret.

The strategy is backed by the development of a new cyber-force. By 2016, the Pentagon plans to be able to field more than 100 teams. The teams will be divided into three categories: defending military networks, damaging the capabilities of enemy networks and helping to defend the nation’s infrastructure.

The Pentagon said it will comply with internationally accepted rules of warfare when using cyber-tactics. Such rules include a concept that responses should be proportional.

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

MONTGOMERY VILLAGE, Md. – An uncle of the Boston bombing suspects said he did not know what motivated his nephews to allegedly plant bombs that killed three people, but said it might have been “hatred” because they were unable to “settle themselves” in America.

The uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, also made an impassioned appeal to his nephew, 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev:

“If you are alive turn yourself in and ask for forgiveness,” Tsarni said, speaking to reporters outside his two-story brick home in suburban Maryland.

He initially angrily called the young men “losers” who might have been bitter about not assimilating into America. Asked again about labeling his nephews as “losers,” Tsarni said he wasn’t referring to them.

“I’m saying those who are able to make this atrocity are only losers,” he said.

Police have identified Tamerlan Tsarnaev as the Boston bombing suspect killed in a firefight in Watertown. Mass. A police manhunt was underway for his brother Dzhokhar.

Tsarni, 42, who lives along a quiet cul de sac spent the morning speaking with FBI agents while reporters and television cameras gathered on his front lawn.

The family are ethnic Chechens. Chechnya is a Muslim region that has fought wars against Russia for independence.

The case is certain to raise questions about homegrown terrorism and the issue of assimilation.

Tsarni hinted that his brother’s sons might have had a hard time adjusting. Tsarni said he had not stayed in touch with his brother, the father of the two suspects, who was a mechanic in Boston. The father is now in Russia.

“Me, myself and this family had nothing to do with them for a long long time,” he said. Tsarni said the last time he saw his nephews was In December 2005.

The Tsarni family seem to have lived a quiet life on a idyllic suburban neighborhood. Tsarni said he loves America.

Neighbors said the Tsarni family has lived on the street for about six years. The family has young children and their neat backyard is filled with playthings. Neighbors describe them as friendly and model citizens.

Tsarni’s brother’s family came with their children in 2003. He said they were granted “asylum” and moved to Cambridge.

He described his brother as a hardworking man trying to support family.

“If that happened then somebody radicalized them, but it’s not my brother,” the uncle said.

He dismissed the idea that nationalism or religion would have driven his nephews.

“Chechens are peaceful people,” Tsarni said. “This has nothing to do with Chechnya.”

“He put a shame on the entire Chechen community,” the uncle said.

Tsarni said he did not make the connection that his nephews were suspects until his family got a call from news media today at 7 am. His wife checked internet and saw photos of nephews.

Tsarni spent the morning speaking to a team of FBI agents who came to his house.

He said that if had an inkling that his nephews might have been involved in suspicious activity he would have been the first one to alert authorities. He said his nephews brought shame to the family.

“I respect this country,” Tsarni said. “I love this country.”

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.