"Bird cage" didn't work, did it?
BREAKING NEWS!!
CNN and General David Grange blow-the-whistle on the HMMWV and Stryker truck fiasco in Iraq that is killing/maiming our troops
www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0404/26/ldt.00.html DOBBS: The U.S. Army is sending hundreds of armored Humvees to Iraq to protect troops from attacks by insurgents. But tonight, there are new fears that the armor on those reinforced Humvees is still inadequate to provide protection for our Soldiers.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre has the report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN MILITARY AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): With U.S. troops still dying in deadly roadside attacks, the Pentagon is spending $400 million racing to replace the Army's basic thin- skinned Humvees with reinforced up-armored versions. But the better armor is still not providing adequate protection, writes a four-star general in a memo obtained by CNN.
"Commanders in the field are reporting to me that the up-armored Humvee is not providing the solution the Army hoped to achieve," writes General Larry Ellis, commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces Command, in a March 30 memo to the Army chief of staff.
Critics say, even with better armor, the Humvee's shoulder-level doors make it too easy to lob a grenade inside. Its four rubber tires burn too readily. At two tons, it is light enough to be overturned by a mob.
General Ellis wants to shift Army funds to build twice as many of the Army's newest combat vehicle, the Stryker, which has eight wheels, weighs 19 tons and when equipped with a special cage can withstand an RPG attack. "It is imperative that the Army accelerate the production of Stryker vehicles to support current operations," Ellis says.
But critics say the Army is overlooking an even cheaper, faster solution than the $3.3 million Stryker, the thousands of Vietnam-era M-113 Gavin personnel carriers the Army has in storage which can be upgraded with new armor for less than $100,000 apiece. Neither the Stryker nor the Gavin offer 100 percent protection. Some U.S. troops have been killed in the top-of-the-line M1-A1 Abrams tank. But the more armor, the better chance of survival.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE: In his memo, General Ellis pleads for quick action, lamenting that, while the U.S. is at war, some in the Army seem to be in a peacetime posture. He writes: "If our actions impede the ability to train, equip or organize our Soldiers for combat, then we fail the soldier and the nation" -- Lou.
DOBBS: And General Ellis' remarks and note come a year after that war began in Iraq. What is -- what is taking so long for the command structure of the U.S. Army, the U.S. military, to provide the equipment that our men and women need in Iraq?
MCINTYRE: Well, I think the short answer is that they misestimated the threat that they would be facing at this point. They have been trying to adapt as time went on. They have been rushing the armored Humvees into theater, but now they are realizing they don't provide enough protection either. What General Ellis wants to do is quick action to get the authority to shift some funds around and ramp up production of the Strykers, so you can get more of those into the combat theater.
But, as I said, some of the critics say they should look to some of the vehicles they already have in storage. They think they can get them there even faster. I think General Ellis is reflecting some of the frustration that the Army feels it can't act fast enough to get enough protection to its troops.
DOBBS: General Ellis, a four-star general. Who put him in charge of looking into this? What is, if you will, his portfolio?
MCINTYRE: Well, he is commanding general of the U.S. Army Forces Command. So his main job is training and equipping. And, of course, he's writing this memo to the Army chief of staff, who is the main person in charge of training and equipping the Army, General Schoomaker. So the right people are focused on the problem. The question is how soon will they have the solution?
DOBBS: Well, for the sake of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, let's hope very quickly.
Jamie, thank you very much -- Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
The military believes about 2,000 insurgents and foreign fighters are now holed up in Fallujah. The marines are hoping those insurgents will surrender their heavy weapons. But the troops are preparing to assault the city if the insurgents do not disarm.
I'm joined now by our CNN military analyst, General David Grange.
General, good to have you with us.
RETIRED BRIG. GEN. DAVID GRANGE, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Thank you, Lou.
DOBBS: I have to ask you, first, what is your reaction to Jamie McIntyre's report and the statement by General Ellis that, point blank, our command structure seems in some respects to be in a peacetime posture, while our men and women in uniform are in war in Iraq?
GRANGE: Well, Lou, I know the leadership of the Army and I don't think they are in a peacetime mind-set.
However, I do agree totally that armored vehicles need to be sent to Iraq immediately to solve some of these problems with the Humvees. First of all, the -- any armored vehicle can take a certain kind of hit and be destroyed or incapacitated. However, Humvees are not the answer. It's too light-skinned, even the up-armored, for some of these actions, whether it be resupply or combat missions that the troops have.
The interim solution is to take the inventory that was just shown on the broadcast of the old 113s, armor those, and use those immediately in Iraq to protect the troops.
DOBBS: General Grange, you are talking about what was popularly known as the APC, the armored personnel carrier, thousands of them, Jamie McIntyre reported, in storage and ready to be rearmored if necessary. Under current armor, could the APC still be serviceable, that is protect our troops in Iraq?
GRANGE: There's no 100 percent protection, but it would provide much more protection than a Humvee and they are readily available and can be up-armored quickly. The Stryker is going to take too long to produce that many. So I'd get something out there now during this very intense period in Iraq.
DOBBS: General, the question has to be asked, this is the 21st century. The U.S. military is supposed to be the most advanced and focused and technologically advantaged force in the world. Yet what appears to be at least at first blush when we have men and women without sufficient armored vests, when they don't have armored vehicles, even the old APC, it does raise a question, what in the world has gone on with our command structure? Because we've got men and women dying there.
GRANGE: Well, that's true. And it's -- when you are a commander on the ground, it's very frustrating when you don't get the things that you think, at least you think that you need. We relearn lessons from every war.
(CROSSTALK)
DOBBS: General, excuse me. Let me be clear in my question, if I was not. I'm not worried about the commander at the company level or the battalion level. I'm talking about the command structure of the United States military, the Pentagon.
GRANGE: Yes, the upgraded vehicles need to be sent to Iraq immediately. They should have already been there. The Humvee is not the answer. I think there was the -- the assessment that the transition after the maneuver warfare to the stability and support operations were not be as violent as it's become was off-base a little bit. But it can be fixed now. Let's do something now and at least provide the needed protection and maneuverability that can be afforded now with the assets that we have. It's still not too late to do something.
DOBBS: Twenty-two -- 2,500 Soldiers, rather, now around Najaf, the U.S. marines surrounding Fallujah. Negotiations continue, which are being honored in the breech here. What is your -- your assessment as to the risk and the necessity of entering in particular Fallujah?
GRANGE: Fallujah, I have a problem with the cease-fire. There are some people that generally want it in Fallujah, some of the civilian leaders. But the hard-core insurgents are going to continue when they want to attack coalition forces, unless they are disarmed.
The city has to be continue to be isolated. You have to separate as many of the civilians from the insurgents as possible. You have to control key terrain and the services provided to the city itself. And you have to take down enemy strongholds as you find them. It's the only way to ensure lasting peace in this particular city. I believe there's a lot of them, insurgents, in there and that's one reason they want to negotiate.
DOBBS: Do you think we should not be negotiating? Mark Kimmitt, General Mark Kimmitt, said capture or kill Muqtada al-Sadr. And the response so far has been, negotiate.
GRANGE: Well, in Fallujah, that out to be taken care of right now. I think there's some time for Sadr. Even though he's maintaining weapons, he's building up his supplies for a fight, I think that that can be worked out, I really do, with some senior Shiite clerics. But, in Fallujah, that's the immediate problem. That has to be taken care of. I think it's OK to have a cease-fire to give it a chance.
The coalition should give it a chance. But I would not test it too much with those marines. In other words, if it looks like it's not working, then be on with it and get on with it and take care of the insurgents in that town once and for all.
DOBBS: General David Grange on point, thank you.
www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4678909
In another attack, insurgents fired two rocket-propelled grenades at a U.S. Stryker military vehicle on patrol in a western district, setting it on fire, witnesses said. More blasts shook the Stryker, as its fuel tanks and ammunition exploded, but a U.S. military spokesman said there were no casualties. Lieutenant-Colonel Joseph Piek of Task Force Olympia said the commander and driver of the vehicle had jumped out. Other Soldiers in the unit were patrolling on foot. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/WireFeed/WireFeed&c=WireFeed&cid=1079420081603 Iraqi guerrillas fire at U.S. military vehicle (Reuters) - March 28 2004 14:11 MOSUL, Iraq (Reuters) -
Insurgents have fired two rocket-propelled grenades at a U.S. military vehicle in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, setting it on fire, witnesses have said. More blasts shook the wheeled Stryker armoured vehicle, apparently as its ammunition exploded. There was no immediate word on casualties in the attack in the west of the city.A passer-by, Mahmoud Ibrahim, 40, said he had seen three attackers in a car fire an RPG at the Stryker as it went down a side street in a western district of Mosul on Sunday. Another RPG was fired at the U.S. vehicle moments later."I saw the Stryker burning," he said. "I saw nobody getting out of the vehicle." U.S. troops in other Strykers sealed off the area.
ANALYSIS:
Where was the escort infantry?
Why didn't the infantry squad -- which was "patrolling on foot" -- neutralize the RPG gunners? Didn't the Army tout having the infantry squad dismounted as the means of preventing the enemy from shooting RPGs at the Stryker, therefore it didn't really need effective armor to counter shaped charges?
This was a preplanned choke point ambush. The armor moves ahead of the infantry who are supposed to provide flank security which of course they couldn't here. The RPG gunners simply popped up and in a couple of seconds fired and disappeared. One round would have been sufficient but they wanted to make sure of a kill.
Where was the Vehicle Commander's (VC) weaponry?
The Stryker's slow-rotating Remote Weapon System (RWS) machine gun mount with narrow field-of-view optics can't react fast enough (especially with multiple targets) to react to threats like the simpler manually rotated M113 Gavin Track Commander's cupola machine gun mount.
I would love to know what the Stryker VC could see. There's virtually no place where you can see in all directions and the RWS probably suffers from many of the same flaws as a Predator drone. It sees what it's looking directly at but has no wide view. I can't imagine how this would work out against the NVA. So far they haven't come up with anything that can match a Soldier's eyes and reaction to fast evolving unknown situations.
No reports about the RWS......was ANYBODY manning it? It certainly doesn't match a human gunner head-out with a GUNSHIELD with situational awareness and experience. The RWS is a pile of junk, more appropriate on Playstation 2 than on a personnel carrier.
A Bradley or M113 Gavin could take a RPG hit better, and have human gunners working powerful 25mm and .50 caliber heavy machine guns; not a slow rotating, cheesy robot machine gun with the VC/gunner looking through narrow optics. For all the money squandered on Stryker truck, the army could have had body armor, and GUNSHIELDS and extra RPG shielding on M113 Gavins, M2 Bradleys. And that no doubt is the reason that the Stryker was so easily ambushed and destroyed. Since the driver was focussed on driving the vehicle, only the VC was available to scan for the enemy. One set of eyes can't possibly keep a continuous 360-degree watch, and even if he saw both RPG gunners, one gun can't simultaneously engage multiple targets.
It seems common tactical sense that the situation begs -- no, screams -- for a rebirth of the ACAV. We don't know if it is feasible to install additional MGs on Stryker's thin steel hull. Even if it can be done, the hatch layout isn't nearly as well suited to turning the SUV into an ACAV, as is that of the M113 Gavin.
This Stryker ran by a roadside bomb:
The point of WAR is to get results on the ground, to have your will dominate. When the Iraqi guerrillas can incinerate a $3.3 million Stryker and embarrass us with just $30 of RPGs they are winning. If you don't understand this, you need to research what 4th Generation Warfare is all about.
For $400,000 we could upgrade M113 Gavin light tracks that wouldn't have got trapped into the bad, restrictive terrain in the first place and could have survived RPG hits without any damage. In other words, guerrillas lose, we win because we are not a flaming BBQ on the 6 o'clock news.
Has the Army's Generals been bought off by General Dynamics, importers of the Canadian-made Stryker trucks?
Weekend Edition
April 24 / 25, 2004
Stryking Out:
A General, GM and the Army's Latest Tank
By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR
On December 10, two Strykers, the Army's newest armored personnel carrier, were patrolling near Balad, Iraq, when the embankment beneath them collapsed and the vehicles plunged into a rain-swollen river. Three soldiers died and another was severely injured. Three days later, another Stryker rolled over a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. The explosion left one soldier injured and the vehicle in flames.
It was an inglorious combat debut for the Army's first new personnel carrier in thirty years. But it confirmed the worst fears of some of the Stryker's critics that the vehicle is unsafe and its crews untrained for using it in combat conditions. One former Pentagon analyst described the 8-wheeled vehicle as "riding in dune buggy armored in tinfoil."
The Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle is billed as the Pentagon's latest weapon in its new high-tech Army, a fast moving carrier designed for the urban battlefield and unconventional wars. This fall the Army deployed 300 Stryker vehicles and 3,500 Soldiers to Iraq's notorious Sunni Triangle, the Iowa-sized area in central Iraq where the most intense guerrilla fighting is taking place.
But new documents reveal that Pentagon weapons testers had expressed serious reservations about the whether the Strykers were ready for battle. The Pentagon's chief weapons tester, Tom Christie, warned in a classified letter to the Secretary of the Defense that the Stryker is especially vulnerable to rocket-propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices. These are, of course, precisely the kinds of threats faced by the Stryker brigades now in Iraq.
Advertised as rapid deployment vehicles, the Stryker brigades could in theory be rushed anywhere in the world within 96 hours by C-130 transport planes. But numerous internal studies have questioned whether the Stryker can be deployed by C-130s at all. Moreover, a newly released Government Accounting Office report scolded the Pentagon for a host of other problems with the carrier, which was meant to replace the much-maligned Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The GAO report points to serious problems with the Stryker's design and maintenance and discloses deficiencies in training for its use.
Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wanted to delay funding of additional Stryker brigades until more testing and training could be completed. But congress, ever an anxious to spread the pork around to as many districts as possible, didn't heed the warning and approved the additional purchases.
The Stryker is a joint venture of two of the mightiest industrial corporations in America: General Dynamics and General Motors. These companies waged a fierce two-year long lobbying battle, stretching from Capitol Hill to the halls of the Pentagon, to win the $4 billion contract to build 2,131 Strykers, which was awarded in November 2000.
The first Strykers, which cost $3 million a piece, rolled off the assembly line in April 2002. Presiding over the ceremony at the Stryker rollout in Alabama was former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. The Stryker was a key component in Shinseki's plan to upgrade the Army, a scheme he outlined in a 1999 paper titled "Army Vision." In that report, Shinseki called for the development of an interim armored brigade featuring "all-wheel formation". This was a thinly veiled hint that the contract would be awarded to General Dynamics. The Stryker is a wheeled carrier, as opposed to the tank-like vehicles built by United Defense which run on tracks.
During Shinseki's speech in Alabama, he pointedly singled out for special thanks David K. Heebner. Heebner, a former Army Lt. General, had been one of Shinseki's top aides, serving as Assistant Vice Chief of Staff for the Army. As such, he played a key role in pushing for funding for Shinseki's projects, including the Stryker. In November 1999, General Dynamics issued a press release announcing that they had hired Heebner as an executive at the company. The announcement came a full month before Heebner's official retirement date of December 31, 1999. The timing of the announcement is curious for several reasons. Most glaringly, it's clear that the Army was leaning toward handing a multi-billion dollar contract to General Dynamics at the very time Heebner may have been in negotiations with the company for a high-paying executive position.
Federal conflict of interest laws prohibit government employees from being engaged "personally or substantially in a particular matter in which an organization they are negotiating with, or have an agreement with for future employment, has a financial interest." It's not clear if Heebner recused himself from the negotiations with General Dynamics over the Stryker contract. However, it's very clear that the Stryker deal, despite the reservations raised by Pentagon weapons testers and the GAO, proved to be very lucrative for both Heebner and General Dynamics. Off the strength of the Stryker deal, Heebner quickly rose to the rank of Senior Vice-President for Planning and Development for General Dynamics, the conduit between the nation's number two defense contractor and the Pentagon. By the end of last year, Heebner amassed more than 13,600 shares of General Dynamics stock valued at more than $1.2 million. "Based on the circumstances surrounding General Heebner's hiring and compensation, and internal Pentagon warnings about the Stryker's vulnerability, further investigation of the Stryker program is required," says Eric Miller, a senior defense investigator at the Project on Government Oversight.
This is the latest in a string of Pentagon scandals involving former Defense Department staffers who pushed for high-ticketed weapons programs, then cashed in by joining the very companies that were awarded with the contracts. Last year, POGO and CounterPunch exposed a sweetheart deal between Boeing and the Pentagon involving the leasing of 21 Boeing tankers to the Air Force. The chief broker of the deal was Darleen Druyun, who helped craft the scheme while working as deputy assistant secretary for Air Force acquisition and management , then lobbied congress to approve it as an executive at Boeing. Facing allegations of fraud and inside dealing, Boeing fired Druyun in December.
Jeffrey St. Clair is co-editor of CounterPunch
MILITARYCORRUPTION.COM
Fighting for the truth . . . exposing the corrupt
THE ARMY’S NEW CAR IS A “LEMON” STRYKER PROGRAM - A BOONDOGGLE SHINSEKI AND HEEBNER CRAWL IN BED WITH GENERAL DYNAMICS
By LONNIE T. SHOULTZ
In their fawning and congratulatory stories written in June 2003 when Army Chief of Staff Eric “Rick” Shinseki retired, most reporters referred to him as the “father of the Army Stryker Brigades.” Few of the writers mentioned the “Black Beret” fiasco that destroyed morale during Shinseki’s watch, since the little general preferred to be known for sheep herding the controversial weapons system, instead.
Shinseki needs to be careful of what he wishes. When the final chapter is written about the shady deals, accommodations, strong arming, bribery and other misdeeds that brought the Army “Stryker” armored car program to life, it will be one of the darkest chapters in the Army’s history.
GUNG-HO FOR LIGHT VEHICLES
When the Senate confirmed Eric Shinseki as the first Asian-American chief of Staff of the Army in June 1999, Bill Clinton’s “politically-correct” general had four years to leave his mark on the service. In a speech made on October 15 of that year, Shinseki stated. “In order to become more deployable and maintain lethality, the Army must field a prototype brigade-size force. The intent is to establish brigades in the next few months that will use off-the-shelf systems, as resources permit and as quickly as possible, to jumpstart development of concepts and doctrine, organizational design, and training.”
It appears that Sinskeki began his task of “lightening” the Army will a willing spirit and a clean heart – then the money got to him.
But instead of buying “off-the-shelf” items for the Army’s new Brigade Task Force, as he stated he would, in many speeches to friendly audiences and both Houses of Congress, Shinseki worked with others to design a new, extremely expensive, overweight and less survivable vehicle than the M113A3 tracked armored vehicle of which the Army already owned over 11,000 chassis.
The M113A3’s could have been refurbished, had digital communications installed, and been field-tested for less than $400,000 each. The wheeled “Stryker” vehicle that Shinseki ultimately approved for purchase is a knockoff of the Swiss MOWAG design, manufactured mainly in Canada (a clear violation of the Berry Amendment that requires the Department of Defense to “Buy American”), costs the U.S. taxpayers $2.8 million dollars each, and is not as survivable as the tracked M113s already in the U.S. Army inventory. Here’s how he went so wrong . . .
SHINSEKI AND HEEBNER – THE TWO CRONIES
In 1996, Shinseki and his fellow member of the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army’s office, Maj. Gen. David K. Heebner, were both assigned to a RAND Corporation study group. More importantly, they were assigned to the RAND Arroyo Center, which is described as the United States Army’s only federally-funded research and development center (FFRDC) for studies and analysis.
Some sources from this assignment state that Shinseki and Heebner co-authored a report. Since the center’s publications are often classified, that claim cannot be independently verified. What is uncontested however, is that they had the same boss and place of work – The Army’s Chief of Staff’s Office – and they were assigned to the RAND Corporation at the same time. Interestingly, the Army’s new Chief of Staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, was in the same study group, but since he worked at the Special Operations Command, he did not have the proximity that Heebner and Shinseki had in rank and interests.
As soon as the U.S. Senate confirmed Shinseki as the Army Chief of Staff in June 1999, he reunited with his RAND classmate, now-Lt. Gen. David K. Heebner. The only project at that time that drew any attention or publicity from Shinseki or Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera was the transformation of the Army to a “lighter force.” They made countless speeches about the “transition force” that would bridge the gap between the present “heavy” Army and the future “lighter” Army. In their speeches and testimony to Congress, seeking Congressional approval to proceed with the development of the transition units, Shinseki and Caldera used the same speech on many occasions which centered around three factors that would be a guide to developing a new force.
FAILURE TO MEET SPECIFICATIONS
Those three factors found their way into the Army’s solicitations for bids for the “Interim Combat Vehicle” (ICV). The Army solicitation stated: “The ICV shall have the capability of, (1) entering, being transportable in, and exiting a C-130 aircraft under its own power and (2) be capable to immediate combat operations (does not require a full basis load, but is desired). However, there was another ICV performance parameter that reflected an operational impact on C-130 transport, and that was the weight.
“The ICV combat capable deployment weight must not exceed 38,000 pounds gross vehicle weight to allow, requirement (3) C-130 transport of 1,000 nautical miles without requiring a USAF waiver for maximum aircraft weight on fixed runways. Two other complimentary performance requirements stated for the ICV were: “The combat-loaded ICV shall be capable of carrying an infantry squad (nine soldiers with individual equipment), outfitted for any season clothing (cold weather),” and “ICV shall provide space for each squad member, two sets of NBC protective clothing and food/water for 72 hours.” In addition, the Army’s requirement was for the vehicles specified “to arrive with three days of supply, and (the Brigade) will then get resupply “in theater.”
The only occassions on which the Stryker has even been able to get into the air in C-130s, was when the Air Force could send them one of the newest, highest-powered “J” model C-130s. However, the C-130J comprises less than 10% of all 500 Air Force C-130s, and there is no money or plans to upgrade the rest of the transport plane fleet.
So, once again, the Army is trying to come in through the back door because it cannot come in the front.
CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS IN MID-STREAM
In the months since the Army learned that General Dynamics could not lighten the “Stryker” and make it meet its contracted weight, instead of leaning on the contractor to perform up to standard in the contract, Army liaison personnel approached all Congressional points of contact and convinced them that they never “really, actually meant” flying the Stryker in Air Force C-130s was required. The Army under Shinseki told lawmakers on Capital Hill that the Stryker should really be flown into theater on USAF C-17s and then sent to forward air strips on C-130s. Obviously that reasoning falls under the weight of knowledge that if the Air Force could get these overweight cars off the ground and fly them for the contracted distance of 1,000 nautical miles on its C-130’s, there would be no reason to ever load them onto a C-17.
There is a reason that Congress mandated the Strykers use C-130s. If a Stryker brigade is to be deployed anywhere in 96 hours, as promised by Shinseki, the Air force would have to use all of its 500 c-130s to transport the 308 Stryker variants in a brigade. The Air Force only has a little less than 120 C-17s. They cannot allot all of them to the Army’s Strykers, so either the Stryker brigades are going to meet the weight requirement in the contract, or General Dynamics is going to have to take its toys and go home broke.
A SHINSEKI “BULLY-BOY” GETS REWARDED
The first solicitation for bids was made public at the National Industrial Defense Association sponsored conference in Ypsilanti, Mich. in December 1999. Several Army officers took personal leave and attended the conference while others were assigned by their commands to note any information that came from the conference. Two officers used their own money to rent one of the ten tables sold by the conference sponsors to people advocating different types of vehicles for the ICV.
One of Shinseki’s “knuckle draggers,” then-Col., now Brig. Gen. Donald F. Schenk, told the officers to “take down” the table they rented. The officers informed the colonel they had rented the table with their own funds and that no government money was involved. To that, Schenk announced that no tracked armor, air mechanized infantry or any other variation of combat vehicle would be allowed to compete for the bid. The “fix” was in, and the Interim Brigade Vehicle would definitely be a “wheeled vehicle.”
Schenk took down the names of the dissident officers at the conference as well as that of their commanders, calling them to claim their subordinates were “disrupting” the conference. Most of the commanders involved must have already known Schenk was an idiot, because no officer who attended the conference got in trouble, even after their commanders received “intimidation calls” from Schenk.
However, in Shinseki’s Army, no bad deed goes unpunished.
The “strong-arm tactics” of then-Col. Schenk at the Michigan conference earned him enough “brownie points” for him to make his first “star” and win him a new job as Program Manager, Future Combat Systems. Since no competing ideas were allowed at the conference, it appeared that Shinseki had succeeded in ramming wheeled vehicles right through the bid process.
AND NOW, THE “PAYOFF”
Just one month after Shinseki announced the need for billions of dollars for Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs), General Dynamics secured its role in the LAV “Stryker” program when it made a job offer to Shinseki’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Gen. Heebner. General Dynamics announced November 19, 1999, six weeks before he was scheduled to retire, that Heebner would become a new “vice president” with the huge government contractor.
Since Heebner had only been promoted to three-star general in May 1997, retiring in January 2000 wouldn’t allow him enough time to complete the required three years in his newest rank to draw a pension as a lieutenant general. By retiring before his higher rank was permanent, Heebner would end up drawing the retirement pay of only a major general. That would cost him tens of thousands of dollars to leave early and take the job at General Dynamics.
Heebner’s contract with General Dynamics was obviously negotiated while he was still a general officer on active duty in the U.S, Army. The terms of that sweetheart contract between the general and the contractor are supposed to be in the public domain. However, all efforts by me to view or learn the terms of that contract have been ignored by both Heebner and General Dynamics.
A BIG PILE OF STOCK SWEETENS THE POT
On December 31, 2000 Heebner finally retired and joined the government contractor. In a little over 30 days, General Dynamics bought out General Motors, its only competitor for the wheeled Interim Brigade Vehicle. And just 60 days after Heebner went to work for General Dynamics – in violation of a law that prohibits him from lobbying his former place of employment for at least a year – General Dynamics made the brass hat a gift of 4,000 shares of its stock.
In the first week of March in each succeeding year, General Dynamics gave former Army Gen. David K. Heebner “gifts” of its company stock. He received the first 4,000 shares on March 1, 2000; another 1,650 shares on March 7, 2001; 1,600 shares on May 1, 2002 and 4,050 shares on March 5, 2003. In Heebner’s stock summary on file at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), it shows he now owns 13,643 shares of General Dynamics stock and an additional 929 shares of stock known as “shares held indirectly.” I certainly hope the U.S. Attorneys Office will ask the FBI to check on the ownership of those last 929 shares of stock.
IT’S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW, BUT WHO YOU KNOW
It’s very interesting how General Dynamics has no compunction about hiring the friends of its new customer, Gen. Shinseki. In this era of corporate malfeasance, such as Enron and WorldCom, General Dynamics diligently recorded the details of every “bribe” paid to Gen. Heebner on inside trading stock reports at the SEC. Serving military officers are still livid at the disgraceful manner in which Heebner has treated his oath, his uniform and his country.
SHINSEKI “TAKES CARE OF” THE POLITICIANS
Probably the most widely-disliked aspect of the Stryker program among military affairs professionals is how Shinseki parceled out the six brigades of LAVs. The where and why is something of a mystery, but can be deduced. What is less clear is why the initial decision was made to create six brigades, since the Air Force can only deal with one at a time? After the initial entry by a Stryker Brigade, the follow-on forces and supplies will not necessarily be Stryker Brigades. It seems that the planning staff at the Pentagon could have been better stewards of our tax money by giving more thought to the mix of forces rather than creating six of the same unit, hoping to get one good one.
SEN. INOUYE GETS WHAT HE WANTS
In 1999, there were two American Army infantry brigades at Ft. Lewis, WA with no mission. The 3rg Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, and the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division were identified in November 1999 as the units to become the first Stryker units. The Brigades stationed at Ft. Lewis had no stated mission other than “theater support for the Pacific Theater.” That suited Shinseki and his cronies just fine. They needed a brigade to be a “show horse” for the Stryker program and one to quickly be a follow-on unit.
Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii recently mentioned the 1st Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division when he promised to try and get them a second Stryker Brigade stationed in the Hawaiian Islands. That effort obviously was tied in with Gen. Shinseki’s well-known desire to run for his mentor – Sen. Inouye’s – seat from his native Hawaii in the 2004 elections. Having two Stryker Brigades in the Islands would provide great “photo opportunities” for slick Senate candidate Eric Shinseki.
The mention of Sen. Inouye above is a good point of departure to discuss how Shinseki determined which units would be turned into Stryker units. After he got his authority from Congress to (1) buy “off-the-shelf” vehicles to rapidly transform the Army into light units; (2) to keep them light enough to fly in Air Force C-130s with their crews, ammunition, fuel and needed consumables for 1,000 nautical miles without refueling and arrive ready to fight, and (3) the brigades had to be light enough to move the brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours after liftoff, a division on the ground in 120 hours, and five divisions within 30 days, Shinseki needed money to even begin the bidding process.
WHY ALASKA AND PENNSYLVANIA? YOU’LL SEE
After the explanation of the location of the first two Stryker brigades, why would Shinseki place one of the quick reaction forces in the frozen tundra of Alaska where the weather is unpredictable for many months of the year? To answer that question, you must examine the structure of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, and more importantly, its subcommittee for defense appropriations.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is the ranking member of both of these two powerful Senate committees. And Sen. Ted Stevens (R- AK) is the present chairman of both committees. If you need money in the military, all you need do is station the product of that money in the states of the appropriators. Inouye got at least one Stryker Brigade for Hawai’s 25th Division and is discussing obtaining another one for the islands, while Sen. Stevens got a fast-response Stryker Brigade promised to the 172nd Infantry Brigade, located in that international hub of transportation – chilly Alaska.
The 172nd calls themselves the “The Snow Hawks” and on their web page, the text reads: “Authorized 3,809 soldiers, this is the largest infantry brigade and the only arctic infantry brigade in the U.S. Army.” It is difficult to understand why Sen. Stevens would even allow Shinseki to discard America’s only Artic-trained unit just to have a couple of garages built in his state on military installations.
Shinseki’s predecessor, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis J. Reimer, took away all of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment’s M1A1 main battle tanks and M2 Bradleys and made them a lighter force by requiring them to take the field in nothing heavier than the Army’s Humvees. That regiment, stationed at Ft. Polk, LA, is paying the price in Iraq today for such a stupid decision. The thin-skinned Humvees are called “RPG magnets” by the soldiers of the 2nd ACR in Iraq. Shinseki selected the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment for transitioning to a Stryker brigade when it returns from Iraq to get it out of the same vehicles that led to the bloody debacle for the Rangers in Mogadishu, Somalia. The Humvee is a light truck. Only Gen. Reimer ever saw it as a “battle vehicle.”
That accounts for four of the six funded Stryker Brigades. If Sen. Inouye is correct and he is able to get another Stryker Brigade stationed in the Hawaiian Islands as a “prop” for Shinseki’s expected run for his long-held Senate seat in 2004, there will be only one more front line, quick deployment Stryker Brigade to be assigned. Where will that unit go?
On March 21, 2001, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee’s Airland Subcomittee, signed a letter with his ranking member, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut requiring the Army to stage a “competition” between the Stryker and its nearest competitor, the United Defense M113A3. Shinseki might not have been sure he could “control” the conduct of that competition, but he could control the interpretation of the results in the U.S. Senate. Shinseki allotted his last planned Stryker Brigade to Santorum’s home state’s National Guard.
AMERICAN DEFENSE JOBS LOST TO CANADA
The allocation of a fast reaction strike force to a part-time reserve unit has probably become the most discussed Stryker assignment of the six brigades. Even the “money guys” on the Appropriations Committee, Sens. Stevens and Inouye, could make the argument that the Strykers “had to be based somewhere,” so why not their states? Santorum can make no such claim. Shinseki is placing one of his prized quick reaction brigades that must deploy in 96 hours in a National Guard unit that would be fortunate to even finds all of its members in 96 hours! They would never get their Stryker’s off the ground in anything close to the required time.
However, Santorum has made no further objection to the Stryker program, although it sucked 1,500 high-paying jobs from the United Defense plant in his home state at York, PA. and allowed the General Dynamics plant up in London, Ontario, Canada to resume full production. Santorum, in effect and in fact, exchanged 1500 full-time union jobs in York for 3,700 part-time National Guard jobs that probably will have to be shared with several other states.
THE PHONY “WAR GAME” AND GEN. VAN RIPER
The competition mentioned above, as mandated between the Stryker Brigade and an aggressor force of M113s was set for an operation known as Millennium Challenge 2002. It was scheduled to be a three-week long, $235 million dollar exercise. The Army contracted with a retired Marine Corps lieutenant general named Paul Van Riper to command the Red “aggressor forces” that opposed the Blue defenders with a U.S. Army Stryker unit. According to an MSNBC report on the war game written by Brendan I. Koerner, the “game” turned into a fiasco. In the first place, the vaunted Styrkers had to stop and change 13 of their big wheels and tires in the first four days of the exercise.
Then, according to Koerner, “controversy erupted when Red forces, commanded by Van Riper, engaged in some clever free play tricks that deviated from what the Blues were expecting. Van Riper used virtual motorcycle messengers to relay orders to his virtual field commanders, thereby negating the Blue Force’s ability to eavesdrop. Mere days into the game, a squad of Red digital Soldiers had “sunk” several Blue ships in the “Persian Gulf” by carrying out suicide attacks with explosives-laden speedboats. “That’s not in the script,” countered the referees, who ordered the Blue fleet to be magically resurrected.
Gen. Van Riper told the Army Times that the sprawling three-week millenium challenge exercises were “almost entirely scripted to ensure a [U.S.] win.” He protested by quitting his role as commander of the enemy forces, and warned that the Pentagon might wrongly conclude that its experimental tactics were working.
“SMOKE AND MIRRORS” AT ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT
Before we leave the subject of Congressional interference in war fighting, the congressman from Alabama’s 3rd District that includes Anniston, went to the Army Depot there, where General Dynamics rents some space to do the final assembly of the Stryker. Rep. Mike Rogers arrived at the Depot full of “fire and fury” and with the press corps in tow. The congressman asked about some rumors he had heard about the Stryker, that only men under five feet five inches tall could get into one. It took me a week of pouring over fact sheets, briefings and other data to even find a reference to the “five feet, five inches” misunderstood quote.
In a Powerpoint presentation prepared by the contractor, General Dynamics, the statement is printed that “due to the amount of electronic gear” the Army wanted stuffed into the operating area of the Stryker, the driver and vehicle commander would have to be drawn from 1-5% of adult men to fit comfortably in the cab area of the vehicle. I don’t know if that is the figure the congressman misinterpreted as only an army of dwarfs being able to ride in the vehicles, but it is the only reference I found to a size limitation for the Stryker. That crew size limitation will also cover the gunners and the main gun operators if that system is ever built by General Dynamics as it contracted to do. Other questions asked by Congressman Rogers were equally as stupid and were asked, of all people, of the contractor’s General Dynamic’s site manager!
I don’t know if Congressman Rogers really expected the employee of the contractor to tell him that the vehicle should never have been built, but that’s who he asked! Even if it is in his home district, Rogers should recognize his own limitations of having never served in our nation’s military. He wouldn’t know a squad from a squadron, but he wants to familiarize himself with the suitability of the Army’s radically new and different transformation vehicle. He knows nothing about the old vehicles the Army is switching over form. How could he be competent to know the subtle difference between the two systems? He can’t. People like him should be charged with practicing military affairs without a brain.
If I were reading this material as another, less informed, law-abiding American, I’d ask, “where were the cops when this theft occurred?” Calling for the “cops” is not that simple in military acquisition matters. One route of protest is to Congress. But both houses of Congress depend on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to be their investigators. Shortly after winning bids were announced, one of the losing bidders, United Defense, protested the nutty methodology used by the Army in determining which vehicle would be the “cheapest” to operate.
WHY THE GAO “ROLLED OVER” FOR SHINSEKI
The army has 40 years of documentation of “costs per hour” to operate the M113 family. The General Dynamics engineers had to guess at the cost per hour to operate the LAV III “Strykers.” When the GAO rendered it’s ruling, it determined that guessing was a perfectly acceptable way to fix costs. So the GAO allowed the “guesstimated” cost per hour of the Stryker - at $8.33 versus the documented $10.53 for the M113s - to stand. There were several other points of confluence that saw protests filed with the GAO and yet the General Accounting Office consistently ruled for whatever Shinseki wanted. Nobody I spoke with in the defense industry had ever seen the GAO “roll over” like that for one defense system, but they did for Shinski. It was almost as if the general had a spy at the GAO.
WEST POINT CLASSMATE – THE “INSIDE” CONNECTION
Some weeks back, I began an Internet background investigation on all the people I could identify from the documents released by the GAO. The official who signed or approved all GAO rulings in this and other matters is named Anthony H. Gamboa. He identified himself on the GAO rulings as “General Counsel, General Accounting Office.” When I ran him on the Internet search engines, I found him listed with the University of Maryland Law Class of 1972 as Anthony Horace Gamboa. That page also listed his bachelor’s degree from the United States Military Academy.
West Point classes communicate and stay in touch by classes, - not as the giant alumni association called the U.S. Army. By accessing an online Class of 1965 database at El Paso, TX, I found that Anthony H. Gamboa of the Maryland Law School “Class of 1972” was a four year classmate of Gen. Eric “Rick” Shinseki in the USMA Class of 1965!
One source I spoke with from a class behind theirs told me that he believed they were two of the four-man West Point Chess team, but I could find no yearbooks online. Simply having his classmate of four years running the legal affairs of the General Accounting Office allowed Gen. Shinseki to do anything he wanted because his fellow Academy “ring knocker” was in a position to make his desires have the force of law.
You can’t help wondering how all of this would have changed if Gamboa had followed the canons of ethics of the legal profession and disclosed his close connection to one of the principles in the Stryker case. We’ll never know, because Anthony Horace Gamboa kept it a secret that he and the most recent Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army spent four years together at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
WHAT ABOUT ETHICS? DID SHINSEKI SELL US OUT?
It’s nice to have friends, but I don’t want mine turning their backs while I fleece the American taxpayers for an overwight, overpriced vehicle and put American workers out of their jobs to keep another flag officer buddy, Gen. Heebner, a vice president at General Dynamics, fat and happy at the taxpayers’ expense.
Heebner doesn’t have to collect unemployment checks in York, Pa. like the defense workers victimized by the Stryker. He’s a millionaire with all his stocks. And the faulty Stryker vehicle is still off from its targeted weight of 38,000 pounds. The last figure I heard was 40,000 pounds, - if they left a few people at home
All this makes you wonder why the government even signs contracts with its suppliers if they’re simply going to hire generals to run the program and violate the contract at will.