Infidelity, intrigue and politics: a timeline of the David Petraeus case

Mandel Ngan / AFP - Getty Images

A June 23, 2011, file photo shows Paula Broadwell, second from left, watching as Gen. David Petraeus and his wife, Holly Petraeus arrive for a Senate Select Intelligence Committee hearing on Petraeus' nomination to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

By Mike Brunker
NBC News

What began with David Petraeus’ surprise resignation as CIA director on Friday resulting from an extramarital affair has now spiraled into a complicated story of infidelity, intrigue and politics.

Petraeus’ admission of an extramarital affair quickly led to his biographer, Paula Broadwell, and an examination of her relationship with the decorated war hero. The length of the FBI’s investigation of “menacing” emails sent to Petraeus’ family friend Jill Kelley, and the timing of the announcement of his departure from the Obama administration fueled conspiracy theories. Then Gen. John Allen, Petraeus’ successor as military commander in Afghanistan, was embroiled in the scandal, accused by U.S. officials of sending “inappropriate” emails to Kelley.

To help you keep the facts straight, NBC News has compiled this timeline, based on reporting by NBC News and other published accounts:

Spring 2006 -- Paula Broadwell meets Gen. David Petraeus, when she introduces herself after he gave a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School, where Broadwell was working on a master's degree, the Wall Street Journal reported. 

October 2008 -- Petraeus takes over as head of U.S. Central Command, based at MacDill Air Force Base. While serving there, he reportedly meets Jill Kelley and her husband, Dr. Scott Kelley. She is described in various accounts as a volunteer “social liaison” between the community and the base.

2008 -- Broadwell begins her doctoral dissertation, "a case study of General Petraeus’ leadership," according to Rolling Stone magazine.  

June 2009 -- Broadwell and her husband, Scott, purchase a home in Charlotte, N.C., the Charlotte Observer reports. 

June 2010 -- Petraeus is named as replacement for Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top commander in Afghanistan after the latter makes impolitic remarks to a Rolling Stone reporter. Broadwell decides to turn her dissertation into a book.  

July 2010-July 2011 – According to an online biography of Broadwell that was taken down after Petraeus’ resignation, she made multiple trips to Afghanistan during this period, where she “embedded with the general, his headquarters staff and his soldiers on the front lines of fighting across Afghanistan to chronicle the experiences of this American general as they are brought to bear in the terrible crucible of war.”  

Aug. 31, 2011 -- Petraeus retires from the U.S. Army, departs Afghanistan.

Sept. 6, 2011 -- Petraeus takes over as director of the CIA.

Steven Boylan, a former spokesman for Gen. David Petraeus, discusses how the affair with biographer Paula Broadwell started, saying the general is "embarrassed and keenly aware of the hurt and pain he's caused."

Early November 2011 – According to former Petraeus spokesman Steve Boylan, who had spoken to his former boss after his resignation, Petraeus' affair with  Broadwell began around this time,  approximately two months after he took the CIA job.

January 2012 – “All In, The Education of General David Petraeus,” by Paula Broadwell with Vernon Loeb is published by Penguin Press.

May 2012 – “Menacing” emails – five to 10 of them, according to the Wall Street Journal -- began arriving in Jill Kelley's inbox, NBC’s Michael Isikoff and Pete Williams report. 

Emails on 'comings and goings' of Petraeus, other military officials escalated FBI concerns

T.Ortega Gaines / Charlotte Observer via Reuters

Paula Broadwell is pictured before embarking on a national book tour to promote "All In," her biography of Gen. David Petraeus.

June 2012 – The FBI investigation begins. A source close to Kelley tells Isikoff that she took the emails, which she viewed as harassing or menacing, to the FBI. The source said the anonymous emails didn’t mention Petraeus by name, but subsequent emails – sent from multiple alias accounts -- contained references to the "comings and goings" of high-level military officials -- including events that were not on any public schedule. This raised the question as to whether somebody had access to sensitive -- and classified -- information about the CIA director.

July 2012 – Approximate end of the affair between Broadwell and Petraeus, according to former Petraeus spokesman Steve Boylan, who  tells NBC’s Kristen Welker in early November that it ended “about four months ago.”
Late  summer -- Attorney General Eric Holder is told that agents have discovered an email link between Petraeus and Broadwell, which included exchange of “explicit details of a sexual nature,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
September – FBI agents interview Paula Broadwell for first time, NBC’s Pete Williams reports.

Oct. 27  -- House Majority Leader Eric Cantor speaks to an FBI agent who had worked on the Petraeus investigation, according to Cantor spokesman Doug Heye. The agent-- who had originally contacted Rep. Dave Reichert, a Republican from Washington -- raised concerns that "sensitive information" relating to Petraeus may have been "compromised," Heye said. The timing of the tip to Reichert is not clear.  

Week of Oct. 29 – FBI agents interview Petraeus and Broadwell (for a second time), according to NBC’s Michael Isikoff.

Approximately Oct. 30-31 – Somewhere around this time frame, Petraeus traveled to Tripoli to conduct his own personal inquiry into Benghazi, according to author Bob Woodward, appearing on "Meet the Press" on Nov. 11. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell confirmed that Petraeus had recently traveled to Libya.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell and the Washington Post's Bob Woodward visit Meet the Press to examine the fallout from CIA chief David Petraeus' extramarital affair.

Oct. 31 – After conferring with his chief of staff, Steve Stombres, and Richard Cullen, a former attorney general of Virginia, Cantor had Stombres call the FBI chief of staff to relay the information he had received from the FBI agent, NBC News has reported.

Nov. 1 -- Cantor aide Steve Stombres is told by the FBI that it cannot confirm or deny an investigation, but the bureau official assured the leader's office it was acting to protect national security.

Nov. 2 – The FBI concludes its investigation, according to NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, citing senior U.S. law enforcement official; the  last FBI interviews with both Broadwell and Petraeus also took place this day, NBC’s  Pete Williams reports, citing federal officials.

Nov. 6 – Justice Department informs Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Nov. 7 – Clapper informs the White House.

Nov. 8 –  Petraeus calls White House Deputy Chief of Staff Thomas Donilon and asks to see the president, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. The White House tells Obama of the FBI investigation of Petraeus and his admission of an extramarital affair.

Nov. 9 – Obama accepts Petraeus’ resignation; Senate and House leaders first learn of it from media calls. They then speak to Petraeus, but don’t hear directly from the president, Mitchell reported.

Nov. 11 – Jill Kelley and her husband, Scott, issue statement: "We and our family have been friends with Gen. Petraeus and his family for over five years. We respect his and his family's privacy and want the same for us and our three children."

Afghanistan military commander Gen. John Allen investigated for 'inappropriate' emails

FBI agents carry boxes and a computer from the home of Paula Broadwell in Charlotte, N.C./ Chuck Burton-AP

Nov. 12 – In a surprise statement during a trip to Australia, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announces that U.S. General John Allen, who succeeded Petraeus as military commander in Afghanistan, is under investigation over allegations he exchanged “inappropriate” emails with Kelley, the woman who triggered the investigation of Petraeus. Meanwhile, FBI agents carry out a four-hour “consensual search” of Broadwell’s home in Charlotte, N.C., leaving with eight to 10 cardboard boxes.

Defense official fires back, denies Afghanistan commander exchanged 'inappropriate' emails

By NBC News staff/

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Updated 4 p.m. ET: Allegedly “inappropriate” emails between U.S. Gen. John Allen and the woman who sparked the investigation into CIA Director David Petraeus do not signify the two had an affair, a defense official told NBC News on Tuesday.

“There was no affair,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.  The emails in question could be misconstrued, the official said, predicting that the investigation will prove Allen’s innocence.

Allen, the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, is under investigation over allegations that he exchanged “inappropriate” emails with Jill Kelley, a senior defense official told reporters earlier Tuesday.

A difference of opinion appeared to be brewing at the Pentagon about how to characterize the emails, with another official calling them flirtatious.

Kelley, a Tampa, Fla., woman who has acted as a volunteer “social liaison” with military officials at MacDill Air Force Base,  inadvertently launched the investigation that led to Petraeus’ resignation by complaining to the FBI about anonymous emails she received.  FBI agents traced the allegedly threatening emails to Paula Broadwell, Petraeus' biographer. 

Emails on 'coming and goings' of Petraeus, other military officials escalated FBI concerns

During the investigation, agents discovered emails between Petraeus and Broadwell that were indicative of an extramarital affair between them, according to government and law enforcement officials.

Petraeus, who was appointed 14 months ago to head the Central Intelligence Agency, announced his resignation on Friday, citing an extramarital affair.

Word of the investigation into Gen. Allen’s involvement came early Tuesday, when U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta issued a statement during a flight to Australia for a meeting with defense officials there, saying that  the FBI had referred “a matter involving" Allen to the Department of Defense's Inspector General.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Glenn on Petraeus scandal: "They used him. Manipulated him. Now they're exposing him"

On TheBlaze Monday night, Glenn took a hard look at the weekend’s biggest news: the resignation of CIA Director General David Petraeus. While Petraeus has cited an extramarital affair as the reason for his resignation, Glenn found the timing almost unbelievable. The news broke only three days after the election and one week before Petraeus was set to testify before Congress.

Two weeks ago, Glenn went on Pat & Stu and predicted it would be General Petraeus taking the blame for Libyan incident.

On his show, Glenn took a hard look at the circumstances surrounding Petraeus’s scandal. A few years ago, Petraeus was one of the most respected figures in America and considered by many as a future Republican superstar and potential presidential candidate. Because of his status, he could easily have been a threat to the Democrats and progressives. But in recent years and months, he’s been isolated and even put in a position to fail.

“Why would you send Petraeus to the CIA and send your CIA Director to the Pentagon?” Glenn asked. Glenn said Petraeus would have been much better at the Pentagon and Leon Panetta was not a sensible choice for the position.

He further noted that reports have emerged that members of the Obama administration knew about the affair while he was being vetted for the CIA Director job, although the White House claims they did not know about the affair. Glenn found this hard to believe, and said that if they did not know everyone involved with the vetting needed to be fired.

“This is Benghazi all over again. Gross incompetence or massive cover-up.”

The scandal will only damage Petraeus’s credibility, and Glenn believes if he does testify on Benghazi it may be too late because of the loss of his reputation.

He further explained that if the White House knew about the affair, they could knowingly put him in a position where he would be forced to take the fall for a scandal like Libya.

David Petraeus Scandal Spreads to General John Allen

MidweekPolitics --The CIA Director David Petraeus scandal grows, now involving General John Allen, under investigation for "inappropriate communications" with a woman said to have received threatening emails from Petraeus' mistress, Paula Broadwell.

Ex-SEAL warned over bin Laden book

FULL STORY  >>

Air Force's secret X-37B landed [Video]

Air Force's secret X-37B space plane lands in Calif. after mystery mission

By Mike Wall

The U.S. Air Force's robotic X-37B space plane finally returned to Earth Saturday (June 16), wrapping up a mysterious mission that lasted more than year in orbit.

The unmanned X-37B spacecraft, also known as Orbital Test Vehicle-2 (OTV-2), glided back to Earth on autopilot, touching down at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base at 5:48 a.m. PDT (8:48 a.m. EDT, 1248 GMT). The landing brought to an end the X-37B program's second-ever spaceflight, a mission that lasted more than 15 months with objectives that remain shrouded in secrecy.

U.S. Air Force / Michael Stonecypher

An X-37B robotic space plane sits on the Vandenberg Air Force base runway during post-landing operations on Dec. 3, 2010. Personnel in self-contained protective atmospheric suits conduct initial checks on the robot space vehicle after its landing. This same craft is due to launch again in fall 2012.

Air Force officials announced the X-37B space plane's successful landing in a brief statement posted on the Vandenberg website and emailed to reporters.

"Team Vandenberg has put in over a year's worth of hard work in preparation for this landing and today we were able to see the fruits of our labor," said Col. Nina Armagno, 30th Space Wing commander at Vandenberg. "I am so proud of our team for coming together to execute this landing operation safely and successfully." [Photos: Air Force's 2nd Secret X-37B Mission]

The X-37B stayed in orbit for 469 days this time, more than doubling the 225 days its sister ship, OTV-1, spent in space last year on the program's maiden flight. Officials at Vandenberg said the spacecraft conducted "on-orbit experiments" during its mission. The landing window for the X-37B actually opened on June 11, and was expected to close on Monday (June 18).

An extended, mysterious mission OTV-2 launched aboard an Atlas 5 rocket from Florida's Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on March 5, 2011. The space plane was designed to stay aloft for 270 days, but the Air Force kept it flying well beyond that milestone in a mission that officials recently called a " spectacular success."

"With the retirement of the space shuttle fleet, the X-37B OTV program brings a singular capability to space technology development," said X-37B program manager Lt. Col. Tom McIntyre in today's statement. "The return capability allows the Air Force to test new technologies without the same risk commitment faced by other programs. We're proud of the entire team's successful efforts to bring this mission to an outstanding conclusion."

Exactly what the spacecraft, which is built by Boeing's Phantom Works division, was doing up there for so long is a secret. The details of the X-37B's mission, which is overseen by the Air Force's Rapid Capabilities Office, are classified, as is its payload.

AIAA / Grantz / Boeing

A size chart shows how the Boeing-built X-37B robot space plane compares to NASA's space shuttle, a larger version of the spacecraft called the X-37C and an Atlas 5 rocket.

This secrecy has led to some speculation, especially online and abroad, that the X-37B could be a space weapon of some sort — perhaps a sophisticated satellite-killer. Some experts also suspect that the vehicle may be an orbital spy platform.

The Air Force, however, has worked to tamp down such speculation, stressing repeatedly that the X-37B isn't doing anything nefarious hundreds of miles above the Earth's surface.

"This is a test vehicle to prove the materials and capabilities, to put experiments in space and bring them back and check out the technologies," Richard McKinney, the Air Force's deputy undersecretary for space programs, said shortly after OTV-1 landed in December 2010.

"My words to others who might read anything else into that is, 'Just listen to what we're telling you,'" McKinney added. "This is, pure and simple, a test vehicle so we can prove technologies and capabilities."
The X-37B looks a bit like NASA's recently retired space shuttle, but it's far smaller. The X-37B is about 29 feet (8.8 meters) long and 15 feet (4.5 m) wide, with a payload bay about the size of a pickup truck bed. Two X-37B vehicles could fit inside the payload bay of a space shuttle.
The spacecraft's orbital longevity is enabled by its solar array, which generates power after deploying from its payload bay.
Cargo and crew carrier? While the X-37B currently flies only hush-hush missions for the Defense Department, its spaceflight role may be expanded in the future.
In its current state, the vehicle could fly cargo missions to the International Space Station, docking to the orbiting outpost's common berthing port, Boeing officials have said.
Boeing is also looking into building a larger variant of the spacecraft called the X-37C, which could ferry up to six astronauts to the space station. The X-37C would be 65 to 80 percent bigger than the X-37B.

NASA / MSFC

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center image shows on-orbit functions for the reusable X-37 space plane, now under the wing of the U.S. Air Force.

Originally, NASA used the X-37B as an experimental test bed until funding for the project ran out in 2004. The vehicle then passed to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and it was ultimately turned over to the Air Force in 2006.

Vandenberg officials said the next X-37B mission will launch sometime later this year, most likely during autumn. That mission will use the first X-37B to fly, OTV-1, lofting it to orbit for a second flight.

9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura

VidTruth

 

Ex-US officials investigated over speeches to Iranian group on terror list

AFP, AP files/ Gen. Hugh Shelton, left, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh are among the top former U.S. government officials whose speaking fees have been subpoenaed.

By Michael Isikoff
National investigative correspondent

Speaking firms representing ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton have received federal subpoenas as part of an expanding investigation into the source of payments to former top government officials who have publicly advocated removing an Iranian dissident group from the State Department list of terrorist groups, three sources familiar with the investigation told NBC News.

The investigation, being conducted by the Treasury Department, is focused on whether the former officials may have received funding, directly or indirectly, from the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, thereby violating longstanding federal law barring financial dealings with terrorist groups. The sources, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity, said that speaking fees given to the former officials total hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"This is about finding out where the money is coming from," an Obama administration official familiar with the probe said. "This has been a source of enormous concern for a long time now. You have to ask the question, whether this is a prima facie case of material support for terrorism."

Freeh and Shelton are among 40 former senior U.S. government officials who have participated in a public lobbying campaign – including appearing at overseas conferences and speaking at public rallies – aimed at persuading the U.S. government to remove the MEK from the terror list.

First-class flightsMany of the speakers have received fees of about $30,000 or more per talk and first-class flights to European capitals, according to two sources familiar with the arrangements.

Edward Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor and ex-Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, whose speaking firm also received a subpoena, has received $160,000 over the past year for appearing at about seven conferences and rallies, including some in Paris, Brussels and Geneva, according to his office. (Rendell is a contributor to MSNBC TV.)

The former officials have said they were told the fees came from wealthy American and foreign supporters of the MEK, not the group itself — and they resent any suggestion they are abetting a terrorist group. 

"We're all pretty miffed," Shelton told NBC News. "None of us involved in this would say a good word about anyone suspected of being a terrorist." But Shelton said that he's "pretty passionate" that the MEK represents a legitimate resistance group fighting to overthrow "America's number one enemy" — the Iranian government.

Shelton said that he was informed by Keppler Speakers, the agency that handles his speaking engagements, that it had been subpoenaed for records of talks he has given over the past year at conferences and rallies sponsored by the MEK. He said Freeh told him that Greater Talent Network, the firm which handles his speaking engagements, also received a subpoena.  More >>

In ’highly unusual’ move, Marines asked to disarm before Leon Panetta speech

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More >>

Pentagon Defends Record on Secrecy Reform

Secrecy News/ by Steven Aftergood

The Department of Defense has done a better job of complying with changes in national security classification policy than it has gotten credit for, Pentagon officials told a Senate Committee.  The number of classification guides that are up to date has increased from 30% to over 70%, the officials said, and a new four-volume information security guide that has been under development since 2009 is in final coordination.
In response to a question for the record in a newly published hearing volume, the Pentagon officials — Mr. Thomas Ferguson and Ms. Teresa Takai — criticized an article in Secrecy News that was published a year ago.
Secrecy News had reported that (a) there was a presidentially-mandated deadline for agencies to update their regulations to implement the President’s executive order on classification;  (b) the Department of Defense missed the deadline;  and (c) DoD components such as U.S. Transportation Command were therefore not implementing the requirements of the executive order.  Each of these points was documented with citations to official sources.  (“Secrecy Reform Stymied by the Pentagon,” Secrecy News, February 24, 2011.)
But Mr. Ferguson and Ms. Takai said the Secrecy News article “is inaccurate on a number of counts, and Mr. Aftergood did not consult with the DoD office responsible for updating this issuance.”
The Pentagon officials did not dispute that there was a deadline, or that DoD had missed the deadline.
“We notified the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) that DoD would not be able to reissue the policy [i.e. the new implementing regulations] in the timeframe allowed;  however, ISOO and the National Security Staff denied the DoD request to extend the deadline established in the Executive Order (E.O.) 13526 and its implementing directive,” they wrote.
However, they said, “In October 2010, we sent formal notification to all DoD components reminding them of their obligation to comply with the E.O. as well as with the President’s [accompanying] memo.  We also initiated a DoD wide update of classification guidance.”  More >>

Panetta report fuels concerns that Israel will attack Iran

Jacquelyn Martin / Pool via Getty Images

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta speaks with reporters Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, after the conclusion of a day of meetings with fellow NATO defense officials.

By Robert Windrem
NBC News/

Concerns that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons escalated Thursday when the Washington Post reported that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a “strong likelihood” that Tel Aviv will launch such an offensive in April, May or June. 

Panetta, who is attending a NATO meeting in Brussels, did not dispute the report by Post Op/Ed columnist David Ignatius. 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More >>

The US Army after tomorrow

Military.com/

By Philip Ewing

The Army is out of one war and trying to wind down its second, but service officials are not waiting until they cross the Afghan finish line to begin plotting for what’s next.

The service has two major problems. First: It will likely get smaller as it goes, winding up with an end strength in the low 500,000s or even high 400,000s. Still larger than it was before Sept. 11, but down from its wartime peak. Second: The Army really wants to keep its highly valuable corps of battle-hardened noncommissioned officers and mid-grade officers. But if it goes back to a “Sgt. Bilko” life inside the garrison, cleaning latrines with toothbrushes, those troops are going to walk.

So the Army brass is already doing something about this. Within 24 hours, in fact, came news of two developments that the Army hopes puts it into a good place to deal both with smallness and to offer soldiers some real soldiering into the middle of the decade. Secretary Panetta announced Thursday that two Army brigades now based in Europe would go away  –but that rotational units would take their place for regular exercises with the Europeans. And the head of Training and Doctrine Command told our senior colleague Matt Cox that tomorrow’s Army units could “specialize” in global regions or hotspots, like special operations forces, to stay ready for crisis response.

Ironically, Panetta’s announcement about American soldiers leaving Europe could ultimately mean that they spend more time training in Europe. The brigades based there today have spent a lot of time in Iraq or Afghanistan, but rotational units going over to Europe would mean troops would actually do stuff there in war games with NATO or other allies. The Pentagon is hoping for an elegant solution here: It saves the cost of American soldiers and their families living overseas, but preserves the U.S. commitment to NATO and Europe that has been in effect for decades.

That’s assuming DoD makes good on its rotations and the Europeans want to play ball with the kinds of war games the U.S. Army is interested in.

As for TRADOC’s “regional alignment,” this could give units the chance to deploy many places the Army may not have traditionally operated, and with their soldiers arriving as experts in the local dynamics. Here’s how Cox broke it down in his story Friday:

The concept, known as “regional alignment,” is similar to the way special operations forces assign areas of responsibility to its units. It’s one of the options Army senior leaders are considering as they attempt to plan how the service will operate around 2020, ensuring units are prepared to cope with the complexities of tomorrow’s battlefields.
“I talk to young soldiers all the time — if they are on the fast track to go to Afghanistan, they are focused, because they know exactly what they are going to do. But if they are not, they are saying, ‘What is this home station stuff? What do we do?’ ” said Gen. Robert Cone, commander of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command.

What they could do is get a slice of the globe and try master it, so that if anything unpleasant took place inside their AOR, they’d be ready to parachute in — perhaps literally — and go to work immediately. Army officials haven’t said this yet, so this is just Buzz talking, but “regional alignment” could be a first doctrinal step toward playing in the Air-Sea Battle game. If the Army knocks on the door of the Air-Sea Battle dorm room with armful of pizzas (in this case, a concept for how it would get ready to deal with the many Western Pacific powers) the other inhabitants might be much more welcoming than if the new roomie showed up empty-handed.

It’s equally possible that the Army brass could discard “regional alignment” for all the difficulties it might cause. How quickly could big Army units respond to crises, especially when the Marines are already forward deployed in Japan and Guam and already in sync with the Navy’s amphibious forces? And how well could the Army apply specialization — what size units would do it? Would they keep their areas permanently or rotate them, and if so, how often?

No answers yet, other than the Army is clear that it does not just want to go back to its prewar self — it wants to keep evolving.

Read more: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2012/01/13/the-army-after-tomorrow/#ixzz1jtqp5FU6
DoDBuzz.com

The Cruelest Cuts

FrontPageMag/ By Arnold Ahlert

On January 3rd, President Obama released his vision for military expenditures going forward. It is a plan that calls for reducing troop strength by tens of thousands because, Mr. Obama contends, ”we’ve succeeded in defending our nation, taking the fight to our enemies, reducing the number of Americans in harm’s way, and we’ve restored America’s global leadership.” An integral part of the new strategy? Abandoning the capability to fight two major ground wars simultaneously. ”Yes, our military will be leaner, said the president, “but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, cut right through the rhetoric. ”This is a lead-from-behind strategy for a left-behind America,” he contended. “The president has packaged our retreat from the world in the guise of a new strategy to mask his divestment of our military and national defense.”

The scope of the divestment is daunting. The additional $500 billion in new spending cuts come on top of the $480 billion this president cut out of the military budget his first three years in office. Neither of these cuts reflect the possibility that an additional $500 billion in possible cuts will kick in next January, under “sequestration.” And since the 2012 budget request already calls for the reduction of 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines over the next four years, it is likely those numbers will increase as well.  Read more »

Obama’s War on the American Military

FrontPage/ by Alan W. Dowd 

Declaring that the U.S. military and the nation it defends are at a “moment of transition,” President Barack Obama has unveiled a dramatic scaling-back of the military’s role, reach and resources—complete with troop reductions, force redeployments and a promise to refocus on economic challenges. Or as he indelicately put it last year, “time to focus on nation-building at home.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta calls it a “strategic turning point.” Indeed it is. We are left to wonder just what the United States is turning toward—or into.

In his remarks at the Pentagon last week, Obama called America “the greatest force for freedom and security that the world has ever known.” He’s right about that, but what he doesn’t seem to understand—as evidenced by his sweeping strategic review and retrenchment—is that being a global force for freedom and security is not preordained or written in the stars. Rather, it is a role that requires treasure and effort and sacrifice.

The American people may be ready to give up this thankless job, but that seems doubtful. At the very least, the president needs to make sure they understand what these changes will mean. As Robert Gates warned before he left the Pentagon, perhaps aware of what Obama was planning:

If we are going to reduce the resources and the size of the U.S. military…people need to make conscious choices about what the implications are for the security of the country, as well as for the variety of military operations we have around the world, if lower priority missions are scaled back or eliminated…The tough choices ahead are really about the kind of role the American people—accustomed to unquestioned military dominance for the past two decades—want their country to play in the world.

In other words, there’s a price to maintaining a peerless power-projecting military, but there’s also a price to not doing so. More >>

Breaking news: COMPLETE PENTAGON PAPERS AT LAST!

Washington, DC, September 16, 2011 - For the first time ever, all three major editions of the Pentagon Papers are being made available simultaneously online. The posting today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org), allows for a unique side-by-side comparison, showing readers exactly what the U.S. government tried to hide for 40 years by means of deletions from the original text.
Read >

Pentagon loses contact with hypersonic plane [Darpas HTV-2]

By Tariq Malik , SPACE.com Managing Editor

An unmanned military plane billed as the "fastest aircraft ever built" crashed into the Pacific Ocean today (Aug. 11) after a malfunction caused it to stop sending signals while flying at more than 20 times the speed of sound, military officials said.

The flying prototype, called the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2), plunged into the ocean after shifting into a mode that allows it to fly Mach 20, or about 13,000 mph, according to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which oversaw the test flight.

The rocket-launched vehicle is part of an advanced weapons program, called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is working to develop systems of reaching an enemy target anywhere in the world within one hour. It blasted off from California's Vandenberg Air Force Base at 7:45 a.m. PDT (1445 GMT). [Photos: DARPA Hypersonic Glider's Mach 20 Test]

"More than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal," DARPA officials explained in a statement. "Initial indications are that the aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path."

The update means that today's Falcon HTV-2 test flight, the second performed by DARPA, lasted longer than the project's first flight in April 2010. That first flight lasted nine minutes and ended when an earlier hypersonic vehicle detected an anomaly and also crashed itself into the ocean.

"Here's what we know," said Air Force Maj. Chris Schulz, DARPA HTV-2 program manager, in a statement. "We know how to boost the aircraft to near space. We know how to insert the aircraft into atmospheric hypersonic flight." [10 Military Aircraft that Never Made it Past the Test Phase]

DARPA officials said that according to telemetry from today's HTV-2 flight, the hypersonic vehicle separated from its Minotaur 4 rocket booster as planned, then shifted into the proper configuration for Mach 20 flight — a major feat.

What happens next, though, is a mystery.

"We do not yet know how to achieve the desired control during the aerodynamic phase of flight," Schulz said. "It's vexing; I'm confident there is a solution. We have to find it."

The Falcon HTV-2 aircraft is a wedge-shaped plane equipped with thrusters and aerosurfaces designed to provide control during hypersonic flight. It is built to withstand extreme heating since the flying at Mach 20 can subject it to temperatures of up to 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit, according to DARPA officials, who called it the fastest flying vehicle ever constructed.

"To address these obstacles, DARPA has assembled a team of experts that will analyze the flight data collected during today's test flight, expanding our technical understanding of this incredibly harsh flight regime," Schulz said. "As today's flight indicates, high-Mach flight in the atmosphere is virtually uncharted territory."

To reach hypersonic speeds, the HTV-2 launched into suborbital space atop a Minotaur rocket. The vehicle then popped free of the booster and re-entered Earth's atmosphere.

During today's test flight, DARPA scientists expected the HTV-2 aircraft to use small rocket thrusters to control its re-entry, then pitch itself up to increase altitude and control. After that, the vehicle was expected to enter a long glide phase in order to perform a set of preprogrammed maneuvering tests while flying at about 13,000 mph.

Once those tests were complete, the vehicle was expected to crash itself into the ocean to end the mission. But during the actual flight, ground stations lost contact with the HTV-2 vehicle earlier than planned.

An engineering review board to analyze that data in order to help shape future global strike programs, DARPA officials said.

Pentagon chief warns won't accept extra spending cuts

by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) Aug 4, 2011
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday he would not accept large military cutbacks under a debt deal, charging the move would weaken the United States faced with rising powers.
Panetta, holding his first formal news conference since taking charge of the Pentagon a month ago, launched a pre-emptive strike as a special committee prepares to slash spending under a last-ditch deal to avert a US debt default.
Panetta, a veteran Democratic Party dealmaker who was once in charge of budgets, said that "God willing" the process would not trigger sweeping cuts under which the Pentagon could lose another $600 billion.
Such cuts "I believe would do real damage to our security, our troops and their families and our military's ability to protect the nation," Panetta said.
"It is an outcome that would be completely unacceptable to me as secretary of defense, to the president and, I believe, to our nation's leaders," he said.
Defense spending, which has nearly doubled since the September 11 attacks a decade ago, accounts for 20 percent of the federal budget. The United States spent some $700 billion last year on defense, far more than any other country.
President Barack Obama is planning to withdraw the last US troops from Iraq at the end of this year and pull combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. US forces killed terror leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May and Panetta recently said a strategic defeat of Al-Qaeda is within reach.
Panetta insisted the United States still needed a robust defense to "bring those wars to a stable conclusion" and to face threats from Iran and North Korea which both have controversial nuclear programs.
In a likely allusion to China, Panetta said: "Then the responsibility is obviously to be able to project our power in the world in order to make sure rising powers understand that the United States still has a strong defense."
Appearing next to Panetta, top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen reiterated his support for dialogue with China to avoid miscalculations. Mullen visited Beijing last month and the United States announced Thursday that Vice President Joe Biden would visit from August 16.
But Mullen also voiced "growing concern" as China ramps up military spending, saying that when the United States asks questions of Beijing, "Typically the answer is defensive. We certainly see other capabilities that are not just defensive."
Mullen, who once called the debt the biggest US challenge, said sweeping cuts would have a "devastating impact" for the military.
But Representative Mike Honda of California, a liberal Democrat who serves on the House Budget Committee, said the United States can "easily cut" $1 trillion in defense over the next 10-12 years "without compromising national security."
Military spending tops the average during the Cold War and "reflects defense industry prowess, not threat levels," Honda said.
If Mullen "is serious when he says that the national debt is the greatest threat to our national security, now is the time for Mullen and the Pentagon to start doing something about it," Honda said.
The debt deal signed into law by Obama on Tuesday calls for at least $2.1 trillion in cuts in government spending over 10 years. The White House said military spending will fall by $350 billion in the first round of $917 billion in cuts, in line with Pentagon expectations.
A special congressional committee has been created to come up with a second round of $1.5 trillion in further cuts from all areas.
But if the bipartisan committee fails, then cuts of $1.2 trillion would automatically come into force -- divided evenly between military and non-military spending.
Most observers believe the committee is unlikely to approve such major defense cuts on its own as Obama's opponents in the Republican Party are eager to preserve military spending.

U.S. is “Incapable of Keeping a Secret,” Rumsfeld Concluded in 2005

July 15th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood 
 
In one of his trademark “snowflake” memoranda from 2005 that was made public this week, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stated flatly that the government secrecy system was a failure.
“The United States Government is incapable of keeping a secret,” he wrote (pdf) on November 2, 2005.  “If one accepts that, and I do, that means that the U.S. Government will have to craft policies that reflect that reality.”
Unfortunately, he did not elaborate on this terse statement.  The memorandum was not addressed to anyone in particular, and the profound questions it raises were left hanging.  There was no known written response to the memo and, needless to say, there is no evidence of any subsequent shift to a post-secrecy orientation in government policy.
“Not to sound too cynical,” said a former official who served in the Bush Administration, “but I would add to Rumsfeld’s observation that not only is the U.S. incapable of keeping a secret but it is also incapable of fundamentally reforming the way it keeps secrets.  I know from a practical point of view, even after that snowflake, I found DoD to be one of the most recalcitrant organizations with which to deal,” he added (on a not-for-attribution basis).
But a current official disputed the premise of the Rumsfeld memo.  “We are capable of keeping secrets– the issue is how many and how long,” he said.  “The more we seek to protect and the longer we seek to protect it the less likely we will meet with success.  The classification system can’t be effective if we over-burden the system.”
This official said that the new Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, could still transform the military secrecy system in a meaningful way if he were to treat it as a “mission critical” instrument to be used sparingly and with precision rather than as an inherited bureaucracy that does not have to meet any performance standards at all.
Another current official pondered “What would change if one presumed that the U.S. government cannot keep a secret?  I doubt that many USG officials would say that we should therefore stop trying.  The most likely and positive conclusion might be that we should severely limit the number and kinds of secrets we seek to protect.”
In fact, that seems to be the conclusion that was reached by Secretary Rumsfeld himself in another startling snowflake (pdf) dated August 9, 2005 and addressed to Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), Stephen Cambone:

Read more...

What Were The Eleven Words the Government Intended to Censor from the Pentagon Papers

The National Security Archive

www.nsarchive.orgby Nate Jones

Available to the public since 1971

The Pentagon Papers have been available to the public for 40 years.  Despite this, the federal government recently spent substantial human and monetary capital reviewing and re-reviewing every page, line, and word, of the Pentagon Papers, which Daniel Ellsberg originally leaked in 1971.
Earlier this summer, the National Archives announced that it had finally finished its review of the Papers, and that only eleven words needed to remain redacted.  At a Public Interest Declassification Board Meeting, the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, even joked that historians could “play Mad Libs” with the missing eleven words.  (This reference has since been scrubbed from Nara’s blog, but not from Steve Aftergood’s “Secrecy News.”)
In response, I joked at the meeting that I would simply check the already available Gravel edition of the papers and –not wanting to get in trouble– fill in the Mad Lib with the 90-year-old invisible ink recipe the CIA had just declassified.  My “secrecy humor” got just a tepid response from the crowd.
And I was only partially correct.  The eleven words were actually published in the House Armed Services edition of the papers –which had been reviewed and redacted by the DOD in 1972– not the Gravel edition.  (See here for an analysis of the different releases of the Papers.)  Just before the Paper’s “official” publication, an alert archivist at the Johnson Presidential Library discovered that the eleven-word “needle” in the “haystack” of the Pentagon Papers had actually already been declassified.  John Prados of the National Security Archive, another archivist wrote in an email, would quickly find the eleven words and “parade this discovery like a politician on the 4th of July.”  It looks like that expansive (and expensive) declassification review was unnecessary, after all.

Read more...